Apologetics/Polemics

[mcgyver]

Just an observation here, with a question tacked on the back end...

Used to be that Apologetics (defense of the faith from attacks outside the faith) and Polemics (defense of the faith from attacks within Christianity [i.e. heresy]) were two completely different disciplines. Scholars devoted themselves primarily to either one or the other (although there was some overlap).

Seems that now however the lines have become so blurred that there really is no functional difference between the two disciplines.

Why do you think that's the case? (Has the church as a body strayed so far away from sound theology that the basics of the Christian faith need to be re-laid? Has the church allowed the world to dictate to it? A watered down gospel?)

Just curious as to what ya'll think.

 

[Scotth1960]

Just an observation here, with a question tacked on the back end...

Used to be that Apologetics (defense of the faith from attacks outside the faith) and Polemics (defense of the faith from attacks within Christianity [i.e. heresy]) were two completely different disciplines. Scholars devoted themselves primarily to either one or the other (although there was some overlap).

Seems that now however the lines have become so blurred that there really is no functional difference between the two disciplines.

Why do you think that's the case? (Has the church as a body strayed so far away from sound theology that the basics of the Christian faith need to be re-laid? Has the church allowed the world to dictate to it? A watered down gospel?)

Just curious as to what ya'll think.

I believe the best brief statement in words of the Christian Faith is the Creed of 318 church fathers of 381 AD better known as the Second Ecumenical Council and the First Council of Constantinople. It is an apology (defense in words) of the teaching of the New Testament. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Nathan]

Just an observation here, with a question tacked on the back end...

Used to be that Apologetics (defense of the faith from attacks outside the faith) and Polemics (defense of the faith from attacks within Christianity [i.e. heresy]) were two completely different disciplines. Scholars devoted themselves primarily to either one or the other (although there was some overlap).

Seems that now however the lines have become so blurred that there really is no functional difference between the two disciplines.

Why do you think that's the case? (Has the church as a body strayed so far away from sound theology that the basics of the Christian faith need to be re-laid? Has the church allowed the world to dictate to it? A watered down gospel?)

Just curious as to what ya'll think.

I just saw this post. I am surprised that you have not had more replies.

I think what we see lends itself to fulfillment of prophecy. The lines have definitely become blurred.

It seems that there is no 'hard set' of teachings that anyone holds too, and this ALL comes from within the "church". I think apologetics still stands to those on the outside, but we have found ourselves having to do the same on the supposed 'inside'.

Mat 24:3-4 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" And Jesus answered them, "See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray.

Interesting. Each time someone or something comes along saying that 'I am the Christ' there is 'new' teaching that comes forth. Each one does this because they want to have their own 'following'. So sound doctrine is mixed in with supposed truth.

Mat 24:11-12 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold.

What are prophets? Those who "interpret hidden things" is what a prophet is. So men, deceived by their sensual desire of the flesh, will go after these false proclaimers and then because of 'lawlessness', the love of many grows cold; or in other words, love slowly cools off. How does something cool off? Well its when hot 'mixes' with cold.

So thats what you see there mcgyver. Hot mixing with cold. Indecently we also have a first hand insight of this in another place. The place of the Church of Laodicea.

 

[mcgyver]

Yeah...I'm reminded of the scripture: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

 

[stovebolts]

My short answer?

I think it's because the church became an institution ruled by greed and power seeking to control its members instead of guiding it's members. Martin Luther finally had enough and split off to what is now known as the protestants.

Honestly, this splitting off has gotten so bad that if you don't like what you're hearing at this church, just go find a church that will tickle your ears.

Basically, in many cases (not all) the arguments have become clanging cymbals instead of the voice of reason wrapped in love.

.02

 

[Nathan]

My short answer?

I think it's because the church became an institution ruled by greed and power seeking to control its members instead of guiding it's members. Martin Luther finally had enough and split off to what is now known as the protestants.

Honestly, this splitting off has gotten so bad that if you don't like what you're hearing at this church, just go find a church that will tickle your ears.

Basically, in many cases (not all) the arguments have become clanging cymbals instead of the voice of reason wrapped in love.

.02

Right. And the splitting goes right along with the passage quoted above.

There is no "endurance" anymore. Endurance being that we take in what is heard, ponder it, examine it, and then respond to it. That does not mean the response has to be positive or that it will always be negative.

But the splitting comes because unlike the time of apologetics and polemics, its turned into every man does what is right in his own eyes. And quite frankly, its done in the name of love.

Its the idea of 'I love you, therefore I am not going to discuss with you. We just need to agree to disagree. You go your way, I'll go mine'.

Endurance requires true love. What is done in the 'name of love' is not love at all, its selfishness. It 'looks' like love, but its love of only self and those who love you. Its the flesh of man at its finest, which is why its so deceptive.

 

[mcgyver]

That's a good point!

The other thing that I see is a sense of arrogance and pride...it's like simply because we have computers, cel phones, and all these widgets and toys that we are somehow or in someway "smarter" than previous generations.

I'm reminded of the School of Higher Criticism in Germany during the late 1800s...Attacks upon the foundational tenants of the Christian faith.

The other thing that I see (and this of course is my opinion) is a tendency to immediately discard anything that remotely smacks of "tradition". I'll be the first to admit that not all church traditions are a good thing; in fact many are not. But I see "tradition" being used as a blanket excuse to throw out the baby with the bathwater...

Attacks on the inerrancy of the word of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the virgin birth, even the efficacy of Christ's death on the cross...all lumped under "tradition"....

 

[Scotth1960]

My short answer?

I think it's because the church became an institution ruled by greed and power seeking to control its members instead of guiding it's members. Martin Luther finally had enough and split off to what is now known as the protestants.

Honestly, this splitting off has gotten so bad that if you don't like what you're hearing at this church, just go find a church that will tickle your ears.

Basically, in many cases (not all) the arguments have become clanging cymbals instead of the voice of reason wrapped in love.

.02

That assumes that Roman Catholicism is the church. It isn't. It's a heretcial schism from the church, which left the NT church behind beginning gradually in 1014 AD and culminating in 1054 AD. And sealing the schism with the fourth crusade of 1204 AD. Later, Rome tried to regain supremacy over the church at Florence, but saints of the church, like Saint Mark of Ephesus, resisted the errors of the papists, and preached Holy Orthodox. Through the prayers of our holy father among the saints, Saint Mark Evgenikos of Ephesus, LORD Jesus Christ, Son of GOD, have mercy on us; AMEN. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[Sparkey]

When I ponder the subject under discussion in recent comments to the thread I am reminded of the time that the Israelites were lead from Egypt and the changes in worship that happened with them between the time the law was given and the time Solomon's temple was built.

Compare the move of the Holy Spirit and how he guided the children of God in the desert, the temple in the desert with the Temple (tent) of David and the Temple of his son, Solomon. Each was prescribed by God and each represented different aspects of the relationship that God desired for us to understand.

2Ch 7:1 "Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the LORD filled the house." Was music part of the worship in the temple of Moses?

When we consider the temple spoken of by the prophet Zechariah the glory of God is seen in yet a different manner: "And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name [is] The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD: Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." - Zechariah 6:12-13 KJV

Perhaps we can view the various churches seen today as the Holy Spirit moving on men and leading them:

"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth." - John 4:23-24 KJV

"[Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." - John 14:17 KJV

"(For the fruit of the Spirit [is] in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)" - Ephesians 5:9 KJV

As believers continue to follow after Him in truth we will be led from glory to glory to join together in unity of the faith and follow the admonishment given by Paul that all be done for the edification of the church. Until then, the church that our Father desires is "under construction" in the hearts of His people.

"And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled." - Revelation 15:8 KJV

 

[francisdesales]

I believe the best brief statement in words of the Christian Faith is the Creed of 318 church fathers of 381 AD better known as the Second Ecumenical Council and the First Council of Constantinople. It is an apology (defense in words) of the teaching of the New Testament. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

I find it strange that you have whittled down the faith of the Church to two Councils. Apparently, nothing said after 381 meant anything to Christians... And of course, these "uber Councils", what makes them "the standard"?

By the way, the Councils are not "apologies" of the Bible. They are "apologies" of what the Church teaches, most specifically, questions not resolved by reading a passage from the Bible!!!

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

That assumes that Roman Catholicism is the church. It isn't. It's a heretcial schism from the church, which left the NT church behind beginning gradually in 1014 AD and culminating in 1054 AD. And sealing the schism with the fourth crusade of 1204 AD. Later, Rome tried to regain supremacy over the church at Florence, but saints of the church, like Saint Mark of Ephesus, resisted the errors of the papists, and preached Holy Orthodox. Through the prayers of our holy father among the saints, Saint Mark Evgenikos of Ephesus, LORD Jesus Christ, Son of GOD, have mercy on us; AMEN. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

Technically, there is a difference between "heresy" and "schism". The Orthodox claims that the Roman Church is in schism, and vice versus. If anyone uses the word "heresy", they are not following what their own church states, since both sides lifted excommunication and charges of heresy long ago...

Errors of the papacy! You mean like the Robber Council of Ephesus, universally accepted as a false council - because Rome said so... You are funny with your parroting the party line. Read some history and find out about the Bishops of Constantinople, some 18 times in 1000 years declared a heretic by Eastern bishops... Yea, funny, especially since I have already told you this and you ignore it...

As to the rest, all I have to say is that the Orthodox CANNOT be the visible fullness of the Church on earth, because she cannot convoke a Council!!

Ever.

She can say NOTHING infallible anymore and must rely on the moments in time when she WAS united to the Church of Christ visibly. The Spirit speaks through Orthodoxy only when re-iterating 1500 year old doctrines, when joined to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. That clearly points out where the Orthodox stand on such matters.

Regards