A Christ Centered Approach to Apologetics

[Nathan]

Well, it put this over on the second page......it was meant to be for the post above it.

 

[Nathan]

That's funny. And true.


He did it once, he can do it again

You know what the funniest thing is, every time I read that story it cracks me up, Balaam did not even blink twice that his donkey was talking to him. Which is a good thing for us to understand - some people we are brought to speak to are going to be hard headed.

 

[OzSpen]

Apologetics is a discipline of defending the faith (in this case the Christian faith). What I want to explore is how that is to be done in the right way.

There is a formal way, and a less formal way as I understand it. Less formal is what we do here I suppose although more formal approaches may be used. The question for the group is, how ought we to conduct ourselves in a defense of what we believe to be true? What is the best way that is Christ honoring?

I'm of the opinion that this forum is in need of this type of discussion AND, starting with ME, we can all benefit from examining our approach and modeling it after the Spirit of our Lord.

thoughts?

Papa,

I'm not exactly sure there is a 'right way' of apologetics. Down through the centuries, there have been various types of Christian apologetics. These have included:

• Classical apologetics: Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Peter Kreeft, C S Lewis, J P Moreland, Frank Turek (?), etc.
• Evidential apologetics: William Paley, Bernard Ramm, Josh McDowell.
• Historical apologetics: Tertullian, Justin Martyr, John Warwick Montgomery, Gary Habermas.
• Presuppositional apologetics: Cornelius van Til, John Frame, Francis Schaeffer, Gordon Clark, Carl F H Henry, Edward Carnell, Gordon Lewis.
• Etc.

We could go into some of the approaches of these if you wanted, but that's a starter from me.

Oz

 

[Papa Zoom]

Papa,

I'm not exactly sure there is a 'right way' of apologetics. Down through the centuries, there have been various types of Christian apologetics. These have included:

• Classical apologetics: Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Peter Kreeft, C S Lewis, J P Moreland, Frank Turek (?), etc.
• Evidential apologetics: William Paley, Bernard Ramm, Josh McDowell.
• Historical apologetics: Tertullian, Justin Martyr, John Warwick Montgomery, Gary Habermas.
• Presuppositional apologetics: Cornelius van Til, John Frame, Francis Schaeffer, Gordon Clark, Carl F H Henry, Edward Carnell, Gordon Lewis.
• Etc.

We could go into some of the approaches of these if you wanted, but that's a starter from me.

Oz

If people want to explore the different approaches I'm all for that. Looks like a good way to further the discussion.

 

[OzSpen]

If people want to explore the different approaches I'm all for that. Looks like a good way to further the discussion.

Papa Zoom,

Promoters of one kind of apologetics generally critique the other main approaches.

I'll start with some emphases of Classical Apologetics.

Norman Geisler, who is a supporter of Classical Apologetics, states that this approach stresses: (a) arguments for the existence of God, and (b) the historical evidence supporting the truth of Christianity. His view is that this model has 2 basic steps:

1. Theistic arguments for the existence of God, apart from an appeal to special revelation in the Bible. If God exists, the logical inference is that 'miracles are possible; indeed the greatest miracle of all, creation, is possible'. The credibility of miracles leads to the second step ...
   
2. 'Confirmed historical evidence substantiates the truth. The New Testament documents are shown to be historically reliable.... These documents reveal that Jesus claimed to be, and was miraculously proven to be, the Son of God.... From this it is often argued that Jesus confirmed the Old Testament to be the Word of God and promised the same for the New Testament' (Geisler 1999:41-42).

Geisler lists these people as supporters of Classical Apologetics: Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and in modern times, Winfried Corduan, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, John Gerstner, Stuart Hackett, Peter Kreeft, C S Lewis, J P Moreland, John Locke, William Paley, R C Sproul, and B B warfield.

Perhaps that will open up further discussion.

Oz

Works consulted
Geisler, N L 1999. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I weigh in later as am in AZ and on cell phone.

 

[GodsGrace]

Oz Guniess

John Lennox

Allister McGrath

Oh my (showing my age) .... Mere Christianity...??? You know.

William Demski

Tom Gilson

Dilbert (just kidding)

C.S. Lewis

 

[Jim Parker]

Geisler lists these people as supporters of Classical Apologetics: Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas,

Interesting....

Those are precisely the people who sent western Christianity down the rabbit trail of death being God's punishment for sin and the necessity that God's honor, which was violated by Adam's sin, could only be restored by the satisfaction of restoring through punishment by death, something greater than the guilt of the violation.

"Therefore man cannot and ought not by any means to receive from God what God designed to give him, unless he return to God everything which he took from him; so that, as by man God suffered loss, by man, also, He might recover His loss. ….. But a sinful man can by no means do this, for a sinner cannot justify a sinner."
(Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, CHAPTER XXIII What man took from God by his sin, which he has no power to repay.)

This is classical "western" Christian apologetic, which is a departure, beginning in the 5th century with the teaching of Augustine, from the early church's teaching up to that point. It had the result of focusing Christian thought on the death of Christ as the penalty for our sins rather than the resurrection of Christ by which He gained victory over the devil by destroying the power of death which the devil wielded through sin. By so doing, he restored man's opportunity to gain immortality and union with God which had been lost through sin and death.

Augustin, Anselm, Aquinas, and the scholastics introduced a juridical view of salvation, taken from Greek philosophy** which was not found in the writings the early church. The result is that, in the Western view, God created death to punish man's sin, which is seen rather as "a crime against God", and, therefore, salvation is salvation from God who punishes sin by having another, guiltless person (Christ) satisfy the necessity of justice that someone be punished in order to repay God for the damage done to his honor by Adam's ans our sin.

**(primarily Plato for Augustine while the scholastics introduced Aristotelian logic as a tool for Biblical exegesis)

In the early church, prior to the thread begun by Augustine, death was not a crime punishable, according to divine justice, by God inflicting the death penalty upon all sinners. Sin was not a crime and death was not a punishment; death was the natural consequence of man's sin separating him from the life of God. Salvation is Christ's victory over the power of sin to cause death and corruption (returning to dust) (1Cor 15:54-55) and the reuniting of man to God by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (John 14:17) and by being "in Christ" (Ro 6:23) thus enabling man to achieve the immortality which was God's original will for man.

"In the West, discussions about redemption are not based, as they are in the Greek Fathers, on the absolute need for salvation from death and corruptibility through the life-giving flesh of Christ. For the West, since man is by nature immortal and bodily death is from God, .." (footnote 16, page 108, The Ancestral Sin, John Romanides)

I suggest that the true "classical" Christian apologetic is to be found among Augustine's predecessors among the Greek fathers like Justin, Irenaeus, Ignatius and, therefore, I do not accept Geisler's view that Augustine and the scholastics put forth the "Classic apologetic" of the Church. They developed and put forth the classical distortion of the Gospel which spread to Roman Catholicism and, essentially, all of Protestantism.

just my 2 (okay, 3 or 4) kopecks

iakov the fool

 

[Papa Zoom]

All discussions related to apologetics are fine but the OP asks this:The question for the group is, how ought we to conduct ourselves in a defense of what we believe to be true? What is the best way that is Christ honoring?

 

[Jim Parker]

All discussions related to apologetics are fine but the OP asks this:The question for the group is, how ought we to conduct ourselves in a defense of what we believe to be true? What is the best way that is Christ honoring?

The best way to honor Christ might be to defend what actually IS true rather than what WE BELIEVE to be true.
Just a thought......

 

[Papa Zoom]

The best way to honor Christ might be to defend what actually IS true rather than what WE BELIEVE to be true.
Just a thought......

But it clearly refers how we ought to conduct ourselves. It's related to Colossians 4:6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

 

[Jim Parker]

Colossians 4:6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

Absolutely!!!
And it also needs to be truth. (was my point)
I have met several con men whose conversation perfectly fit the description of Col 4:6.
Jus' sayin'...........


iakov the fool

 

[chessman]

I'm not exactly sure there is a 'right way' of apologetics.

An excellent read I just finished:

Fool's Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion IVP Books https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZJ9TJHM/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdb_JDiazbKH0KZQP

Jesus used questions in His interactions with people for a reason. Dogmatic statements have there place. But when you are trying to persuade a skeptic, it's best that they form the answer to relevant questions for themselves. That way, they believe the the obvious answer if they are truly interested in the truth. Problem is, many 'modernists' don't even think there is Truth.

 

[dirtfarmer]

dirtfarmer here

All of our apologetics are based on what and how we believe. It is hard to defend anything that we don't believe is truth, unless we are lawyers.

 

[OzSpen]

An excellent read I just finished:

Fool's Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion IVP Books https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZJ9TJHM/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdb_JDiazbKH0KZQP

Jesus used questions in His interactions with people for a reason. Dogmatic statements have there place. But when you are trying to persuade a skeptic, it's best that they form the answer to relevant questions for themselves. That way, they believe the the obvious answer if they are truly interested in the truth. Problem is, many 'modernists' don't even think there is Truth.

chessman,

That looks like a good read from Os Guinness. I find many of his writings to be penetrating in analysis.

What relevant questions would you ask to skeptic to try to persuade him or her?

Not only modernists, but also postmodernists, don't believe in Truth. It's difficult to get past the truth that you and I are interacting on a Christian forum. Is it true that the Supreme Court Rules to Criminalize the Activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia?

Oz

 

[chessman]

I find many of his writings to be penetrating in analysis.

Yes, this one, even more so than the others I've read of his. It's NOT an easy read, but boy he makes some good points. The later chapters are more directly related toward this fine OP's point. He shows multiple examples of Christ being a good apologetic persuader through His questions.

Here's an example:
The disciples were on a boat and a great storm came. They requested; "Save us Lord, we are perishing". His question was spot on and very informative, actually if you really think about the answer. "Why are you afraid [of perishing], you men of little faith". And His calming of the storm that was causing their fear, even more effective. It got them to thinking "“What kind of a man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?” Another excellent question. The Kind of God-Man that saves people from perishing, the obvious answer.

What relevant questions would you ask to skeptic to try to persuade him or her?

I like to be discrete with my questions to them. Meaning, if I come right out and directly ask; "Do you know Jesus as your savior" or "Do you believe God exists", or something similar, it's an immediate turn-off to many skeptics/atheists. Put's them in a defensive posture that never goes away. That is, unless it's an honest searcher, which I find rare.

I've kind of come up with an approach that I find somewhat effective (but certainly not always). Inevitably in most conversations someone that I know that is an unbeliever (from previous interactions) will apologize for something they've done or said. I'll use that as an indirect opportunity to ask them "why do you feel sorry?" The goal is to then start up a non-confrontational conversation about Objective Moral Values (using their own words/feelings). "Have you ever felt sorry for lying?", for an example of a follow-up question. Have they done something objectively wrong, or merely subjectively wrong by lying. If lying is merely subjectively wrong, then why in the world do they feel sorry for doing it??? If the lie is simply their subjective choice at that time, why the regret??? A lie is no different than the truth, if it's all just subjective word choices. But, a lie is different than the truth. And deep down, they know it is.

The goal is to get them to come to realize that they have sinned against God's morals and that they do honestly feel sorry for those sins (or at least they did at one time if they've not somehow suppressed their regret for so long they no longer have any), without coming right out and telling them they are 'sinners' in need of repentance. I've had it lead to great conversations with skeptics that got them to honestly thinking about why adultery/murder/lying, etc., really is objectively wrong (not just subjectively wrong). From there, it's not much of a leap into God's word. But if I stand at a highway intersection with a sign on my chest asking "Got Jesus?", I don't see any productive value.

Is it true that the Supreme Court Rules to Criminalize the Activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia?

I guess it's true. IDK. I don't really understand your question. I'm glad I don't live in Russia and glad I'm not a JW.
I don't know what will come of Christian persecution in the US, however. I find it odd that just a few years after Islam made yet another attack on America on 9/11 that we Americans now us the term "Islamophobia" as a pejorative term. Should we not all be somewhat scared of Islam's demonstrated hatred toward Christians and America??? But hay, in the end, Jesus is capable of keeping His people from perishing.

In the mean-time, we've got bigger guns than they do!
The US supreme court can make some bone-headed 5-4 decisions sometimes. But sometimes it goes 5-4 the right way, too.

 

[JLB]

however, to try defending the faith - without having a good grasp on it yourself - is a recipe for disaster. So in other words, Apologetic's being a discipline, you have to understand your limitations, and stay within those boundaries.

So true.

Knowing what faith is from both experience and scripture is needed in order to discuss in a Christ like way.

IOW, taking the definition of faith from the bible, [Hebrews 11:1], as a foundation for discussion to be built upon would be a good start.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

Taking examples from "His" discussions, that He had with other's, is also a great way to see what is defined as "Godly".



JLB

 

[JLB]

The best way to honor Christ might be to defend what actually IS true rather than what WE BELIEVE to be true.
Just a thought......

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, this one, even more so than the others I've read of his. It's NOT an easy read, but boy he makes some good points. The later chapters are more directly related toward this fine OP's point. He shows multiple examples of Christ being a good apologetic persuader through His questions.

Here's an example:
The disciples were on a boat and a great storm came. They requested; "Save us Lord, we are perishing". His question was spot on and very informative, actually if you really think about the answer. "Why are you afraid [of perishing], you men of little faith". And His calming of the storm that was causing their fear, even more effective. It got them to thinking "“What kind of a man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?” Another excellent question. The Kind of God-Man that saves people from perishing, the obvious answer.


I like to be discrete with my questions to them. Meaning, if I come right out and directly ask; "Do you know Jesus as your savior" or "Do you believe God exists", or something similar, it's an immediate turn-off to many skeptics/atheists. Put's them in a defensive posture that never goes away. That is, unless it's an honest searcher, which I find rare.

I've kind of come up with an approach that I find somewhat effective (but certainly not always). Inevitably in most conversations someone that I know that is an unbeliever (from previous interactions) will apologize for something they've done or said. I'll use that as an indirect opportunity to ask them "why do you feel sorry?" The goal is to then start up a non-confrontational conversation about Objective Moral Values (using their own words/feelings). "Have you ever felt sorry for lying?", for an example of a follow-up question. Have they done something objectively wrong, or merely subjectively wrong by lying. If lying is merely subjectively wrong, then why in the world do they feel sorry for doing it??? If the lie is simply their subjective choice at that time, why the regret??? A lie is no different than the truth, if it's all just subjective word choices. But, a lie is different than the truth. And deep down, they know it is.

The goal is to get them to come to realize that they have sinned against God's morals and that they do honestly feel sorry for those sins (or at least they did at one time if they've not somehow suppressed their regret for so long they no longer have any), without coming right out and telling them they are 'sinners' in need of repentance. I've had it lead to great conversations with skeptics that got them to honestly thinking about why adultery/murder/lying, etc., really is objectively wrong (not just subjectively wrong). From there, it's not much of a leap into God's word. But if I stand at a highway intersection with a sign on my chest asking "Got Jesus?", I don't see any productive value.


I guess it's true. IDK. I don't really understand your question. I'm glad I don't live in Russia and glad I'm not a JW.
I don't know what will come of Christian persecution in the US, however. I find it odd that just a few years after Islam made yet another attack on America on 9/11 that we Americans now us the term "Islamophobia" as a pejorative term. Should we not all be somewhat scared of Islam's demonstrated hatred toward Christians and America??? But hay, in the end, Jesus is capable of keeping His people from perishing.

In the mean-time, we've got bigger guns than they do!
The US supreme court can make some bone-headed 5-4 decisions sometimes. But sometimes it goes 5-4 the right way, too.

chessman,

You have some superb questions here relating to objective vs subjective morality.

Regarding the JWs being banned in Russia:

• ABC News (our national broadcaster) here in Brisbane reported the same, Jehovah's Witnesses banned by Russian court as 'extremist' organisation, ordered to disband (21 April 2017).
  
• The JW's own organisation has reported, Supreme Court Rules to Criminalize the Activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia (21 April 2017).
  
• In the UK, The Guardian reported, Russia bans Jehovah's Witnesses and labels group as extremists (20 April 2017).
  
• Christianity Today reported on it also.

I do not support the theology and indoctrination of the JWs as a cult, but what has happened to the JWs in Russia is an example of the rejection of freedom of religion and stomping out of a religious minority. How much longer before the Baptists and Pentecostals, Wesleyans and Presbyterians, are regarded as 'extremist' groups in Russia.

I can't see them as a threat to the Russian nation, but they do cause division in families. But you don't have to go to the JWs to see that.

I consider this action against the JWs is a threat to freedom and that includes freedom of religion and free speech.

Martin Niemoller was an anti-Nazi theologian and prominent Lutheran pastor in Germany during World War II. I agree with Martin Niemoller's assessment:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—​

(Martin Niemoller,1892-1984)

I will support the JWs regaining their position as a religion in Russia. I will not get to this point: They came for the JWs and I was silent because I was not a JW.

Why did I raise the issue of the JWs being banned in Russia? I was trying to explore the nature of truth. Too often people often see truth as true vs lie. Truth has a broader definition than that. How do we discover the truth that the earth orbits the sun?

Charles Colson has addressed some of these issues in ch 14 of The Body, 'I am the Truth'. I have dealt with similar issues in my article, What is truth?

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

How much longer before the Baptists and Pentecostals, Wesleyans and Presbyterians, are regarded as 'extremist' groups in Russia.

Under the rule of the Soviets, Baptists and Pentecostals were tolerated. In fact, there is still the Baptist Union and the Pentecostal Union to which Baptist and Pentecostal pastors belong and are paid by the state to oversee their congregations and will receive a pension when they retire. I met one Baptist pastor while in Russia. The government sent him to Germany for seminary.

I suspect that the JWs were picked out because the Orthodox church once again is allowed to make comments to the government and probably recommended that, since they were not trinitarian, they should be banned. There are also Mormon and Scientology missionaries in Russia as well as a wide range of evangelicals.

Greece has had a law banning all proselytizing in their country. They are Greek Orthodox and everything else is heretical. (Except of course, communism and socialism and atheism which run rampant.)

jim