Paul...
Originally posted by Paul manata
What don't you understand?
Here is a simple illustration: Your friend says that all that matters is drinking bear and getting your jollies off how ever you want to. He later get outraged at a case of child molestation. At this point you can simply say, "but I thought all that mattered was getting drunk and getting your jollies off however you wanted to?" So, this seesm simple to me, how about you?
First off, how do you drink a bear?
Sounds scary.
My first reaction to my friend, whom I've probably already shared the gospel, is that I would tell him that this is the depravity of fallen man. I would take him to the Scriptures to show him that this is in the heart of every man. But I'm approaching "his" problem with my worldview. I'm not using his worldview to beat him with.
"In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord and be prepared to give ANY man an answer for the hope that lies within."
Knowing that Russell came from a different place, and that he was obstinate in his views, I wouldn't waste my time with him unless he asked me why I have hope. If he invites me for my opinion, I'll give it to him. But to openly debate him when he didn't ask for my opinion is not something I would want to do.
Why don't you define what you think apologetics is?
Defending the faith before scoffers, and offending those who ask why I believe what I believe.
How do you evangelize, then?
By preaching the gospel. I don't need to convince anyone their worldview is wrong, the Bible does that all by itself.
Paul engaged in debate, both with believers and unbeleivers. As an aside, I think presuppositional apologetics is preaching the gospel. I'd recomend "The Intellectual Challenge of The Gospel" by Van Til (probably 5 bucks!).
I do understand that he did this. But I'm not so sure it's as normative as what we would think. And I do agree that he was simply preaching the gospel. And while he made examples of their culture and belief, I see it as a way to contrast his own beliefs. Perhaps this is all apologetics is suggesting, but in practice I see dead people, so to speak. Some people go out of their way to demolish another's world view. The Holy Spirit doesn't really need our help to make someone understand their faulty thinking. We present the Scriptures without compromise, and if the Holy Spirit is working in them, they will see the stark contrast without any beatings from us.
Well, since this is highly general (in that their may be different arguments or objections, so it's not cookie cutter, in one sense) I'll give a highly general answer: You prove it by showing that if the Bible wasn;t true then they couldn;t prove anything, their very asking for "proof" assumes that the Bible is true."
I understand this, as well. But I think this type of argumentation does not lead us where we want to go. If I come up against a person who does not believe the Bible to be true and asking me for proofs, I would simply tell them that I cannot prove anything by empirical evidence or external authority. I would say that if they don't believe it, that is their prerogative. But the Bible says that they will come to understand the truth, and if it is in death, then it is too late.
They accept it based soely on the work of the holy spirit.
Right, that is what I meant. If they believe, they believe because the light has been "turned on" by the Holy Spirit. If they believe not, they are just the same as I was in my trespasses and sins.
I guess what I'm getting at is that I like apologetics in practice, but not in theory. Now, when I go to practice apologetics, I think there is a sense in which the discourse is ordered by the Lord. True, if I am a novice, God will have to work harder through my apology. At the same time, God has a purpose in the encounter. He either wants the seed to be planted, the seed watered, or the seed sprouted. In planting, only God knows what soil it's fallen upon. In watering, there is some semblance of that person desiring truth. They may still be obstinate or they may be coming around. But the seed is no longer dormant, and I believe has not fallen on the rocky soil, but on soil in which some growth (hopefully the good soil) can occur. In sprouting, that person has a good foundation by which they can start prolonged growth, but again, their soil may not be the good soil.
At the point where real, genuine growth happens, I don't know that there is need for apologetics any more, except where the "new plant" needs to be apologetic themselves. But the faith shouldn't have to be defended anymore with a person who is growing. At that point, discipleship teaches them and they learn, but they are no longer opposed to the truth of God's Word.
If all this is true, then I'm like the race horse who hates to practice, because there is no other horse to run against, but who loves to race because of the competition. The horse like this is a racehorse in practice, but not in theory. I think that's the kind of apologete I am.
The thing I keep going back to is that the Bible teaches us to be disciples. Now if disciples, do we have to endure the mechanics of apologetics? The average disciple, no. We who desire to teach others must endure it. But even in this type of training, I wonder if the mechanics will help or hurt. In my case, I'm hurting because philosophy is hard for me. Logic is not much easier. But in the case of Jesus' sending out the 72, I don't believe He gave them an extended course in apologetics, although they would have been going to people who by and large, shared the same worldview and presuppositions. Perhaps that is why we see a different tact when it comes to Paul who was the apostle to the gentiles.
I am merely uncomfortable with formal apologetics in the mechanics of the thing. Perhaps that just means I'm lazy. What is my problem?
I need help figuring this out.
In Christ,
KC
