Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
The Difference
- Thread starter GodsGrace
- Start date
New Day Coming
Member
How about this?
Apologetics
1 Peter 3:15
15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Evangelism
Luke 14:23
23 Then the master said to the servant, ‘Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
Apologetics
1 Peter 3:15
15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Evangelism
Luke 14:23
23 Then the master said to the servant, ‘Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
Christian apologetics is defending the faith—using arguments to show how belief in the Christian God, and all that follows, is reasonable.
Evangelism is telling people about the Gospel.
It is practically impossible these days to engage in evangelism without also having to engage in apologetics.
Apologetics is biblically based, commanded by Peter, shown in use by Paul in Acts, and is the basis of much of the NT.
To say that ‘there is nothing truly “Biblical” about it’, is to be completely ignorant of what apologetics is and its purpose. What you’re describing is more theological polemics than apologetics.
Apologetics is upholding the truth of the Gospel as what it says word for word as written and Evangelism is taking the Gospel/Good News out into the world preaching the good news of Gods grace.
Example; Man is on the soap box and says: "Jesus Christ is the son of God."
Someone yells back and says, "God has no son."
The man on the soapbox answers, "Read Proverbs 30 verse 4, and then tell me God has no son".
Apologetics is answering a complaint with evangelizing.
Someone yells back and says, "God has no son."
The man on the soapbox answers, "Read Proverbs 30 verse 4, and then tell me God has no son".
Apologetics is answering a complaint with evangelizing.
Excellent.
Thank you.
An apologetical approach would be to ask the person why they think God has no Son.
No, not really. Apologetics is defending the Christian worldview. Although it must be ultimately grounded in Scripture, it relies heavily on logic and reason as it addresses issues in philosophy, science, history, etc. The point is to remove obstacles people have to seeing and accepting the message of the Gospel.
Allen Wynne and Free made very good points.
It used to be that apologetics was using history and other information to show how Christianity is a reasonable religion, and how, as New Day Coming said, in Luke it tells us to go out and evangelize...but today everyone is so smart and knowledgeable
that it also takes some apologetics, as NDC posted in 1 Peter 3:15.
Seems to me like one could practice apologetics without evangelizing, but one cannot evangelize anymore without using some apologetics.
It used to be that apologetics was using history and other information to show how Christianity is a reasonable religion, and how, as New Day Coming said, in Luke it tells us to go out and evangelize...but today everyone is so smart and knowledgeable
that it also takes some apologetics, as NDC posted in 1 Peter 3:15.
Seems to me like one could practice apologetics without evangelizing, but one cannot evangelize anymore without using some apologetics.
The last sentence is so true.
Thanks.
Would you care to expand on that last sentence?
Would you agree with my post no. 10?
Yes, I agree with your post. As for my sentence, "It is practically impossible these days to engage in evangelism without also having to engage in apologetics", as soon as any mention of Jesus or "God" is mentioned, any number of questions or statements are given in response. One of the most common responses is something like, "That's just your truth". So, the conversation can't even get off the ground until the idea of truth is discussed. Scripture is often brought up as well, usually along the lines of it just being the words of men or the words of those who suppressed all other opposing views.
Due to the nature of the world these days with the interconnectedness that technology brings and all the information available at our fingertips, many people are getting more informed about such things, both rightly and wrongly (reading Richard Dawkins, for example). Most of this begins with the errors of post-modern ideology and the current climate of post-truth, where emotions dictate "truth" instead of facts, not to mention the rise of scientific naturalism.
It isn't entirely a bad thing, I suppose, as it forces people to really search and question. The problem is that if one has become informed by reading and studying poor sources, they are more likely to oppose the message of the gospel, requiring the use of apologetics on the part of the evangelist.
Papa Zoom
CF Ambassador
This is totally false Willie. You make this claim without any supporting argument? That's bad form.
Paul used apologetic tactics on Mars Hill. And here:
'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. ' Romans 1:18-20 https://www.bible.com/bible/100/ROM.1.18-20
We have reference to the Cosmological Argument and the Argument from design and the Fine Tuning argument all in 3 verses. Understood through what has been made.
This next verse is basically a textbook definition of apologetics: 'but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; ' 1 Peter 3:15 https://www.bible.com/bible/100/1PE.3.15
I have studied apologetics for years and it is not man-conjured nor is it unbiblical. It's at the very heart of what we do both in evangelizing and defending the faith.
Papa Zoom
CF Ambassador
There are different approaches to Apologetics: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/374-five-apologetics-methods
Also read here: https://www.bethinking.org/apologetics/an-introduction-to-christian-apologetics
str.org is an apologetic web site and they have excellent resources
Christianity without the intellect is a silly notion. It's empty headed IMO. The Bible itself constitutes evidence for the faith! (eye witnesses for example)
Of course they'd say "that's just YOUR truth."
This is what post modernism is...everyone has their own truth.
There is, for them, no absolute truth.
So before you could get to the real truth, which is God's morals and not man-made morals or what they think morals are, you have to convince anyone that subjective truth cannot be a truth since there is no final truth in that belief.
As you said about emotions: If it feels ok, it must be ok.
Lies abound...
Papa Zoom
You posted a good site.
It speaks of 5 different ways to approach apologetics.
Here they are:
THE CLASSICAL METHOD
THE EVIDENTIAL METHOD
THE CUMULATIVE CASE METHOD
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/374-five-apologetics-methods
You posted a good site.
It speaks of 5 different ways to approach apologetics.
Here they are:
THE CLASSICAL METHOD
The classical method is an approach that begins by employing natural theology to establish theism as the correct worldview. After God’s existence has thus been shown, the classical method moves to a presentation of the historical evidences for the deity of Christ, the trustworthiness of the Scripture, et cetera, to show that Christianity is the best version of theism.
THE EVIDENTIAL METHOD
The evidential method has much in common with the classical method except in solving the issue concerning the value of miracles as evidence. Evidentialism as a apologetic method may be characterized as the ”one-step” approach. Miracles do not presuppose God’s existence (as most contemporary classical apologists assert) but can serve as one sort of evidence for God.
THE CUMULATIVE CASE METHOD
The third of the Big Four is the cumulative case method.
According to advocates of cumulative case apologetics, the nature of the case for Christianity is not in any strict sense a formal argument like a proof or an argument from probability. In the words of Mitchell, the cumulative case method does ”not conform to the ordinary pattern of deductive or inductive reasoning.” The case is more like the brief that a lawyer makes in a court of law or that a literary critic makes for a particular interpretation of a book. It is an informed argument that pieces together several lines or types of data into a sort of hypothesis or theory that comprehensively explains that data and does so better than any alternative hypothesis.
THE PRESUPPOSITIONAL METHODAccording to advocates of cumulative case apologetics, the nature of the case for Christianity is not in any strict sense a formal argument like a proof or an argument from probability. In the words of Mitchell, the cumulative case method does ”not conform to the ordinary pattern of deductive or inductive reasoning.” The case is more like the brief that a lawyer makes in a court of law or that a literary critic makes for a particular interpretation of a book. It is an informed argument that pieces together several lines or types of data into a sort of hypothesis or theory that comprehensively explains that data and does so better than any alternative hypothesis.
Due to the noetic effects of sin, presuppositionalists usually hold that there is not enough common ground between believers and unbelievers that would allow followers of the prior three methods to accomplish their goals. The apologist must simply presuppose the truth of Christianity as the proper starting point in apologetics. Here the Christian revelation in the Scriptures is the framework through which all experience is interpreted and all truth is known. Various evidences and arguments can be advanced for the truth of Christianity, but these at least implicitly presuppose premises that can be true only if Christianity is true. Presuppositionalist attempt, then, to argue transcendentally. That is, they argue that all meaning and thought – indeed, every fact – logically presupposes the God of the Scriptures.
THE REFORMED EPISTEMOLOGY APPROACH
‘‘Since the Enlightenment,” Clark says, ”there has been a demand to expose all of our beliefs to the searching criticism of reason.” (…). We are told that if a belief is unsupported by evidence of some kind, it is irrational to believe it. Reformed epistemology challenges this ”evidentialist” epistemological assumption. Those who advocate this view hold that it is perfectly reasonable for a person to believe many things without evidence. Most strikingly, they argue that belief in God does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. The Reformed epistemology apologist will not necessarily eschew making positive arguments in defense of Christianity, but will argue that such arguments are not necessary for rational faith. If Calvin is right that human beings are born with an innate sensus divinitatis (sense of the divine), then people may rightly and rationallly come to have a belief in God immediately without the aid of evidence.
For the Reformed epistomologist, then, the focus will tend to be on negative or defensive apologetics as challenges to one’s theistic belief are encountered. On the positive side, however, the Reformed epistemologist will, in the words of Clark, ”encourage unbelievers to put themselves in situations where people are typically taken with belief in God” (…), attempting to awaken in them their latent sense of the divine.
The complete article can be found here:For the Reformed epistomologist, then, the focus will tend to be on negative or defensive apologetics as challenges to one’s theistic belief are encountered. On the positive side, however, the Reformed epistemologist will, in the words of Clark, ”encourage unbelievers to put themselves in situations where people are typically taken with belief in God” (…), attempting to awaken in them their latent sense of the divine.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/374-five-apologetics-methods
Although I know persons who never held a bible and yet have a lot of faith, I do believe, as you do, that, especially today, one cannot "check his brain at the door" to any church. People are more and more demanding to know their faith. I believe this is good. It means that those who believe do so with full knowledge and acceptance.
New Day Coming
Member
Hi there,
I think there is s place for both apologetics and evangelism. Peter cut straight to the chase after Pentecost, Paul used reason, literature and "pre evangelism" at Mars hill...