A Christ Centered Approach to Apologetics

[chessman]

Here's a question posed to Jesus by unbelievers and His answer:

Mark 7:5-8 (NASB) The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me. ‘But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” ​

He used the Word of God to tell them the answer to their question.

Here's a question posed to Jesus by one of His disciples and His answer:

John 13:36 (NASB) Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord, where are You going?” Jesus answered, “Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you will follow later.” ​

He gave him the Word of God to answer his question. Even giving him new prohecy that this disciple would deny Him three times before the next sunrise), yet still the Truth; "you WILL follow Me later".

That's some powerful stuff, that Word of God.

 

[Silmarien]

Funny you should ask this question just now. I was just responding to another post that asked what eternal is.

Eternal is defined as having no beginning or end. So I suppose that means eternity is the construct that exists without a beginning or end.

When I think of that I am immediately drawn to understanding why God 'lives' there. If He did not live there, then it would mean He lived in a place that either had a beginning, or an end, or both.

It also makes me think that the fact the world we see has many beginnings and ends, then it cannot be eternal. However, as you noted, there is nothing 'new' under the sun.

So God created in the beginning, that means He must have had an end plan also. Makes sense that it is why we cannot know Him completely in this 'time constraint' because we cannot know what eternity is like yet.

It also makes sense why Jesus came - and left.

What does eternity mean to you?

I'd probably focus on eternity as timelessness instead of being without beginning or end, because as soon as you start thinking of things in temporal terms, I think you're tying it to the way we process time and causation within the universe. I'd say this is the trap atheists fall into, since they wrap themselves up in knots over what can and can't be possible within the bounds of Creation, and miss the point that a transcendent God is a completely different concept. I've seen some bizarre "disproofs" of God's existence, though.

Another neat question to ask would be does God 'live' anywhere at all, or is he just... eternity itself, so to speak? I really appreciate that strand of thought throughout Scripture that talks about God as present everywhere--I know there's a Psalm like that, and then Paul really starts pushing that angle. (Though I'm kind of a recovering idolater who's spent so long hypothesizing wildly about what the divine might and might not entail, I've been trying to set aside the urge towards constant conjecture.)

 

[Nathan]

I'd probably focus on eternity as timelessness instead of being without beginning or end, because as soon as you start thinking of things in temporal terms, I think you're tying it to the way we process time and causation within the universe. I'd say this is the trap atheists fall into, since they wrap themselves up in knots over what can and can't be possible within the bounds of Creation, and miss the point that a transcendent God is a completely different concept. I've seen some bizarre "disproofs" of God's existence, though.

Another neat question to ask would be does God 'live' anywhere at all, or is he just... eternity itself, so to speak? I really appreciate that strand of thought throughout Scripture that talks about God as present everywhere--I know there's a Psalm like that, and then Paul really starts pushing that angle. (Though I'm kind of a recovering idolater who's spent so long hypothesizing wildly about what the divine might and might not entail, I've been trying to set aside the urge towards constant conjecture.)

I see what your saying. Your right, to try and understand something without beginning or end, from the point of view which has a beginning and end, is not reasonable.

Maybe that is why we are constantly told about eternal life in Christ. Because apart from that, there is no reasonable hope. We are confined to know that we obviously had a beginning(even if we don't remember it), and we see around us that all things come to an end.

We also know that something cannot come from nothing, so we know(in a way) that there is something beyond that which we know has a beginning and end. In order to understand this, we are then brought to the fact that it is possible for something to be eternal.

Then the question is raised; does the eternal interact with the temporal? If it does, how does it?

Obviously the eternal does interact with the temporal, or else the temporal would not exist. So it only leaves the other question.

 

[Jim Parker]

I'd probably focus on eternity as timelessness instead of being without beginning or end, because as soon as you start thinking of things in temporal terms, I think you're tying it to the way we process time and causation within the universe. I'd say this is the trap atheists fall into, since they wrap themselves up in knots over what can and can't be possible within the bounds of Creation, and miss the point that a transcendent God is a completely different concept. I've seen some bizarre "disproofs" of God's existence, though.

Another neat question to ask would be does God 'live' anywhere at all, or is he just... eternity itself, so to speak? I really appreciate that strand of thought throughout Scripture that talks about God as present everywhere--I know there's a Psalm like that, and then Paul really starts pushing that angle. (Though I'm kind of a recovering idolater who's spent so long hypothesizing wildly about what the divine might and might not entail, I've been trying to set aside the urge towards constant conjecture.)

Something to keep in mind is that, although we talk about God using ideas from our experience, there is no similarity between God and creation.

iakov the fool

 

[K2CHRIST]

I appreciate seeing people offer up logical conclusion made about our Lord based upon the Scriptures and study. But is that a "Christ Centered Approach"?

It is really more of a "Scripture Centered Approach?" Which is fine because all Scripture is inspired by God and good for study, reproof, learning, etc. Still the Scriptures are not Christ but sacred writing meant to lead us to Christ, and help us in our walk with Him. He is the "Truth" and that because He really does exists, and as fully God He has all the attributes of God. That is to say He is Omni-present. He never leaves us.

So a "Christ Centered Approached" would be an approached based upon what we are hearing from Him, via the Holy Spirit. So I personally feel the best way to cover "Apologetics" would be to hear from the Lord, present that, and then back it up with Scriptures. That is to say, I do prefer a truly Christ Centered Approached backed up with the Scriptures. In fact I believe that is an approach we so often see in the Bible. Although it may not always be clear that the writers of Scriptures were presenting what they are heard and backing it up with Scripture.

For example in 2 Tim 3:14-16 We see Paul write "You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing whom you have learned them..... (and goes on to write) ... All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

By writing "knowing whom you have learned them", it should be evident that Paul was learning from our Lord Jesus Christ. That is to say Paul had been hearing the Lord teach Him. So Paul had concluded that all Scripture is inspired by God based upon what the Lord had said to him and not what other people had said to him, otherwise he would not have written "become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them.

We hear the small calm spiritual voice of the Lord speak to us and we must become convinced ( have faith in) of knowing it is Him our Lord talking to us.

And note: just a few verses later Paul is writing that "they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desire, and will turn away their wears from the truth...

Jesus Christ is the Truth. He explained that and continues to explain that today to those who listen and are convinced of knowing whom they have learned from. Still when He came He had to explain to the Jews that they were searching the Scripture thinking in them they had eternal life instead of coming to Him. (Jn 5:39)

When we start calling the Scriptures the "the Truth" instead of calling Him "the Truth" are we not doing exactly what Jews did?
Are we really convinced of knowing whom we have learned from?
And if we are not listening to Jesus Christ, have we not indeed turned our ears away from "The Truth", seeing how Jesus Christ is "The Truth"?

Paul was right. The Scriptures are good for reproof. They are good for pointing people back to Jesus Christ. They are good for showing the He is the Truth. They are good for encouraging people to become convinced of knowing from whom they are learning from. And they are good for pointing out they people tend to ears their ears away from Him. He really does exists, and He really does teach us and talk to us today.

He once told me, "Karl, how come they say, 'Listen to me, listen to me'? Isn't it because they are not listening to Me?"

If we are really going to say we use "A Christ Centered Approach to Apologetics", shouldn't it really be that? Should it be about be listening to what He teaches us first and then back it up with Scriptures? We are not just trying to present our understanding of the Scriptures apart from hearing from Him are we? If so, it is not Christ Centered at all. Admit it. It is us centered. It is about what we think if we are not first hearing from Him. It is listen to me, listen to me, instead of listen to Him our Lord Jesus Christ. If that is the case we need to apologize for our apologetics.

Yet if I am leading them to our Lord and telling them to listen to Him, then I don't need to apologize for that, because He is there at the door and is indeed willing to come into anyone willing to open the door and let Him in. Then they will indeed know the Truth.

 

[OzSpen]

So a "Christ Centered Approached" would be an approached based upon what we are hearing from Him, via the Holy Spirit. So I personally feel the best way to cover "Apologetics" would be to hear from the Lord, present that, and then back it up with Scriptures. That is to say, I do prefer a truly Christ Centered Approached backed up with the Scriptures. In fact I believe that is an approach we so often see in the Bible. Although it may not always be clear that the writers of Scriptures were presenting what they are heard and backing it up with Scripture.

How do I know that what you are hearing from Him via the Holy Spirit is really from Him?

 

[Jim Parker]

How do I know that what you are hearing from Him via the Holy Spirit is really from Him?

An essential question.
9 days later, we are still awaiting a response.

 

[OzSpen]

An essential question.
9 days later, we are still awaiting a response.

This is one of the problems with subjective/existential 'revelations'.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. There may be reasons for the delay.