What's new
  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

Feedback Separate apologetics from theology

Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
3,929
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#61
What I'm referring is the possibility of the OP enlarging as different points are brought forth as long as the author is engaged in it. I've seen many threads grow after the main OP is satisfied, a great many enter into discussion of various offshoots of the original subjects with the Author participating also only to be shut down.
E.g., the OP is that the Bride makes herself ready by works of righteousness in Rev 19:7-8, and that leads to how that is not speaking of being saved by works, and then wanders to OSAS versus someone losing their salvation. The author is always available to bring it back to the OP.
I'd just like to see somewhere to really debate without being moved to another forum, or edited so much a thread dies just when a lot of members get active in it.
My thoughts.
That was a very helpful explanation of your thoughts. When the comments to the OP begin to wander, a moderator's one liner would help get it back on track: 'This is not what the OP is discussing. Let's get back to the OP. If you want to discuss that topic, please start a new thread'.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
10,778
Gender
Male
#62
sounds great but the reality is A tells B you're not saved if you believe THAT then the reports starts .. And B says to C about A she is not one of us... they are a cult... the ping pong game starts...
View attachment 7043
There lies the need of editing & gentle moderation to keep an active forum. We deal with many levels of spirituality, and can be instrumental in keeping things moving along in a manner to edify, and aiding their growth in Christ.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
3,929
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#63
More rules, more legalism, less Christianity.
Doesn't sound like a Christian forum to me.
All conversations need rules. It's not legalism, but a requirement for healthy dialogue. I can't and wouldn't use bullying tactics of swearing at a fellow employee on the job. I have boundaries for conversation at work and at church. On this forum should be no different.

Imagine what it would be like if there were not fundamental rules for the playing of football, tennis, cricket and baseball. I have to abide by the rules of driving on Australian roads, for obtaining a driver's license and then the speed and boundaries of driving on the road.

'More rules' do not necessarily lead to 'more legalism'. Rules are at the core of Christianity. John 14:6 (ESV) and Acts 4:12 (ESV) could be defined as 'more rules, more legalism' but it is core Christianity. There are some very definite rules in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7).

It is most definitely a Christian forum if rules are required because boundaries (rules) are necessary for disciplined Christian living, an example being, 'If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue, but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless' (James 1:26 ESV). So the legalism of bridling the tongue is a demonstration of religion that is worthwhile before God.

Oz
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
12,253
Gender
Male
#64
All conversations need rules. It's not legalism, but a requirement for healthy dialogue. I can't and wouldn't use bullying tactics of swearing at a fellow employee on the job. I have boundaries for conversation at work and at church. On this forum should be no different.

Imagine what it would be like if there were not fundamental rules for the playing of football, tennis, cricket and baseball. I have to abide by the rules of driving on Australian roads, for obtaining a driver's license and then the speed and boundaries of driving on the road.

'More rules' do not necessarily lead to 'more legalism'. Rules are at the core of Christianity. John 14:6 (ESV) and Acts 4:12 (ESV) could be defined as 'more rules, more legalism' but it is core Christianity. There are some very definite rules in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7).

It is most definitely a Christian forum if rules are required because boundaries (rules) are necessary for disciplined Christian living, an example being, 'If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue, but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless' (James 1:26 ESV). So the legalism of bridling the tongue is a demonstration of religion that is worthwhile before God.

Oz
You might find yourself in a forum all by yourself.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
422
Gender
Female
Christian
Yes
#65
Perhaps I'm incorrect here, but Apologetics, imo, is believers defending their beliefs and differing ideas in a theological discussion using the Bible to "prove" their point.

Evangelism is what comes to mind for me when I read the OP, this is dealing with non believers, witnessing to them and talking to them about our faith. Instead of changing A&T, perhaps an Evangelism section would be better suited, this way we all learn how to approach those non-believers when they ask questions similar to those presented in the OP. :shrug
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
10,778
Gender
Male
#66
All conversations need rules. It's not legalism, but a requirement for healthy dialogue. I can't and wouldn't use bullying tactics of swearing at a fellow employee on the job. I have boundaries for conversation at work and at church. On this forum should be no different.

Imagine what it would be like if there were not fundamental rules for the playing of football, tennis, cricket and baseball. I have to abide by the rules of driving on Australian roads, for obtaining a driver's license and then the speed and boundaries of driving on the road.

'More rules' do not necessarily lead to 'more legalism'. Rules are at the core of Christianity. John 14:6 (ESV) and Acts 4:12 (ESV) could be defined as 'more rules, more legalism' but it is core Christianity. There are some very definite rules in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7).

It is most definitely a Christian forum if rules are required because boundaries (rules) are necessary for disciplined Christian living, an example being, 'If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue, but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless' (James 1:26 ESV). So the legalism of bridling the tongue is a demonstration of religion that is worthwhile before God.

Oz
I do not think that rules other than our current Terms of Service is needed. I do know that certain forums have individual restrictions such as no debate I hope would be relaxed a bit on the new Theology Forum.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
47,084
Gender
Female
#68
Nice response Free this is the whole reason for the rules... I really like this
Perhaps I'm incorrect here, but Apologetics, imo, is believers defending their beliefs and differing ideas in a theological discussion using the Bible to "prove" their point.

Evangelism is what comes to mind for me when I read the OP, this is dealing with non believers, witnessing to them and talking to them about our faith. Instead of changing A&T, perhaps an Evangelism section would be better suited, this way we all learn how to approach those non-believers when they ask questions similar to those presented in the OP. :shrug
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
13,677
Gender
Male
#69
Perhaps I'm incorrect here, but Apologetics, imo, is believers defending their beliefs and differing ideas in a theological discussion using the Bible to "prove" their point.

Evangelism is what comes to mind for me when I read the OP, this is dealing with non believers, witnessing to them and talking to them about our faith. Instead of changing A&T, perhaps an Evangelism section would be better suited, this way we all learn how to approach those non-believers when they ask questions similar to those presented in the OP. :shrug
Apologetics is defending one's faith against those who believe differently. In this case, it is about Christians defending their faith against those who are not Christians. It isn't about Christian versus Christian in a theological discussion.

Apologetics and theology are two different subjects; related but different.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
3,929
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#70
Perhaps I'm incorrect here, but Apologetics, imo, is believers defending their beliefs and differing ideas in a theological discussion using the Bible to "prove" their point.

Evangelism is what comes to mind for me when I read the OP, this is dealing with non believers, witnessing to them and talking to them about our faith. Instead of changing A&T, perhaps an Evangelism section would be better suited, this way we all learn how to approach those non-believers when they ask questions similar to those presented in the OP. :shrug
Since I live in a very secular, post-Christian country, I find that sharing the Gospel will lead almost immediately into non-Christian challenges that can be quite inflammatory at times, like:
  • 'That's garbage (and followed by a string of expletives)';
  • Myth! Trash! Nonsense!
  • Science has proven your creation myth to be to be just that - myth - that is found in many of the stories of mythology.
If you were here, I wonder what kind of response you would get by using the Bible to prove your points. These antagonists do not believe the Bible and my experience tells me that quoting it won't engage them in conversation.

This afternoon I travel by train to the inner city Town Hall for a meeting of The Gospel Coalition. I'll engage the person beside me on the train in conversation and I'll try to get onto a Christian topic, but I don't plan on engaging that person by quoting the Bible. They are way back further than that in initial contact.

Steven B Cowan is the general editor of Five Views on Apologetics (Cowan 2000). In his introduction to this book, he wrote on 'the nature of apologetics':

'Apologetics is concerned with the defense of the Christian faith against charges of falsehood, inconsistency, or credulity. Indeed, the very word apologetics is derived from the Greek apologia, which means "defense." It was a term used in the courts of law in the ancient world. Socrates, for example, gave his famous "apology," or defense, before the court of Athens. And the apostle Paul defended himself (apologeomai) before the Roman officials (Acts 24:10; 25:8). As it concerns the Christian faith, then, apologetics has to do with defending, or making a case for, the truth of the Christian faith. It is an intellectual discipline that is usually said to serve at least two purposes: (1) to bolster the faith of Christian believers, and (2) to aid in the task of evangelism. Apologists seek to accomplish these goals in two distinct ways. One is by refuting objections to the Christian faith, such as the problem of evil or the charge that key Christian doctrines (e.g., the Trinity, incarnation, etc.) are incoherent. This apologetic task can be called negative or defensive apologetics. The second, perhaps complementary, way apologists fulfill their purposes is by offering positive reasons for Christian faith. The latter, called positive or offensive apologetics, often takes the form of arguments for God's existence or for the resurrection and deity of Christ but are by no means limited to these. Of course, some apologists, as we will see, contend that such arguments are unnecessary or perhaps even detrimental to Christian faith. These apologists focus primarily on the negative task and downplay the role of positive apologetics. Nevertheless, most, if not all, would agree that the apologetic task includes the giving of some positive reasons for faith' (Cowan 2000:8).
This is an especially useful format for a book on apologetics. It provides expositions on 5 different methods:
  1. The Classical Method, William Lane Craig;
  2. The Evidential Method, Gary R Habermas;
  3. The Cumulative Case Method, Paul D. Feinberg;
  4. The Presuppositional Method, John M. Frame; and
  5. The Reformed Epistemological Method, Kelly James Clark.
I enjoy this format because following the exposition of each author's method, the other 4 apologists provide their responses.

Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler have edited a very practical volume to address apologetic issues at the local church level, Is Your Church Ready? Motivating Leaders to Live an Apologetic Life (Zacharias & Geisler 2003).

Oz

Works consulted
Cowan, S B (gen ed). Five views of apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Zacharias, R & Geisler, N (gen eds) 2003. Is your church ready? Motivating leaders to live an apologetic life. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
3,929
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#71
Apologetics is defending one's faith against those who believe differently. In this case, it is about Christians defending their faith against those who are not Christians. It isn't about Christian versus Christian in a theological discussion.

Apologetics and theology are two different subjects; related but different.
:thumb:thumb:thumb
 

WIP

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
9,155
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#72
So if I understand you correctly, by applying the guidelines the way we have, you are saying we have eliminated apologetics from the A&T forum to the point that it is now just a theology thread.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
3,929
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#73
So if I understand you correctly, by applying the guidelines the way we have, you are saying we have eliminated apologetics from the A&T forum to the point that it is now just a theology thread.
That is the case, generally, where I live. By requiring me to address apologetics topics on CFnet by insisting on the quoting of Scripture, we have moved into theology when I would like to deal with apologetics with resistant or antagonistic people. You and I know that it will take a compulsory ministry of the Holy Spirit to change a person's heart.

I agree with the application of rules but it is the requirement or guideline to use Scripture that I find unnecessary in finding common ground with post-Christian secularists.

For example, some non-Christians and even Christians on CFnet use logical fallacies in their responses. I find it necessary to show what the fallacy is and how they use it by linking to a logical fallacies' site, but to do this does not need a Scripture reference.

Oz
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
47,084
Gender
Female
#74
My education is not much.... it took a long time for me to let those who know every thing not stop me from posting...
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
3,929
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#75
My education is not much.... it took a long time for me to let those who know every thing not stop me from posting...
Reba,

I don't understand what you mean by this statement. Would you please be able to help me understand what you mean by 'not stop me from posting'?
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
47,084
Gender
Female
#76
I was intimated by members smarter then my self especially when they chose to correct the way i deliver my thoughts.. ..
this type of posting was extremely hurtful ...
I find it necessary to show what the fallacy is and how they use it by linking to a logical fallacies' site,
I really do not understand why there are 4 pages here of some one trying every avenue possible to not want to use scripture in a Christian forum...in the only forum on the site that requires them...
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
47,084
Gender
Female
#77
My simple mind has had enough of this.... Thinking back on my childhood... there was always a few in the church that had better ideas for everything..... they most never followed through and left the mess for some one else.. Lessons from being a Preachers kid
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
34,819
Christian
Yes
#78
Reba,

I don't understand what you mean by this statement. Would you please be able to help me understand what you mean by 'not stop me from posting'?
ok. I have been intimidated by men and women with higher education. try debating those with a science degree and all you know is the bible. That can be intimidating . While that idea of yours is commendable, not all have the education to grasp science to debate a theistic, naturalist evolutionist.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
13,677
Gender
Male
#79
The two main issues are these, as have been stated several times in this thread:

1. Apologetics and theology are two different subjects, and both are fairly large subjects at that. They should never really have been made into one forum in the first place. Having a separate Apologetics forum would allow for arguments to defend the faith to be gathered in one place, and therefore be effective in helping train those who are interested in defending the faith.

2. Not all apologetic arguments rely directly on Scripture. Defending traditional marriage and the sanctity of human life can be based on both arguments from Scripture and arguments not at all based on Scripture; the problem of evil is largely argued without Scripture; some of the arguments for the existence of God are not base on Scripture; etc. Not to mention the fact that many non-Christians dismiss the Bible and won't listen if one only tries to argue from Scripture. That's just a fact of the world we live in. One of the main points of apologetics is to get people to a point where they will be willing to listen to Scripture. More often than not apologetics is a necessary component of evangelism these days. It would be of great service to the Christian community to have a place where Christians can learn and get trained.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
3,929
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#80
I was intimated by members smarter then my self especially when they chose to correct the way i deliver my thoughts.. ..
this type of posting was extremely hurtful ...

I really do not understand why there are 4 pages here of some one trying every avenue possible to not want to use scripture in a Christian forum...in the only forum on the site that requires them...
Reba,

You have misread what I've written. I am NOT promoting the view NOT to use Scripture in a Christian forum. I'm addressing the ministry of apologetics which deals with objections to the Christian faith. To begin or continue an apologetic discussion with somebody objecting to some dimension of Christianity, it often is not helpful to begin with a 'thus says the Bible' answer. I've given a good number of examples in this thread to demonstrate that some objections to the faith do not require us to start with the Bible. Please go back through this thread to see the specific examples I have given.

I do not appreciate it when you misrepresent what I said. I am most definitely NOT advocating the elimination of Scripture in a Christian forum. I'm advocating that Apologetics is a separate discipline to Theology and that Apologetics needs to be more open. It does not need a requirement or suggestion to always use Scripture.

By the way, I have a very high view of Scripture and quote Scripture often in the forums on which I participate on CFnet. The issue is Apologetics and not needing to always need to quote Scripture.

Oz