Contending, Contentions and Apologetics

[By Grace]

Jude 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. KJV

Before anyone begins to look at an author’s writings, it is important to note something about his biography, and in the first verse of his Epistle, Jude writes this, Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James. This is the same James who became the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and it is the same James who is also the half-brother of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jude is saying in a very powerful manner and in utter humility," I am also the half-brother of Jesus Christ".

Verse 3 and 4 is explicit reason why he is commanding the brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ (note the phrase “our common salvation”) to exhort them—because they were not doing so—to begin to “to earnestly contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”.

The word translated “contend” is based upon the word from which we get the English word “agonize” and the adverb “earnestly” is an intensification of that base word “agonize”. As a result, Jude makes it clear that apologetics surely requires “heavy lifting”; it is not anything like playing “pat-a-cake, pat-a- cake”.

The reasons for the “heavy lifting” are given in verse 4:

A) Some men crept in unaware.
B) These people were “ordained into this condemnation”.
C) They were ungodly men.
D) They perverted the grace of Jesus into pseudo reasons for sinful living
E) They denied OUR God
F) They denied Jesus Christ, OUR Lord​

As a result of what Jude ordered, we have used this as a pattern of a definition whereby we define the word, “apologetics” as simply the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity.

By definition, expositing the truth is a direct assault upon those who meet the requirements listed in verse 4. Therefore, apologetics MUST deal with those who are attempting to be contentious by inserting false doctrine into the minds of the redeemed. Another way to put it is that it is the heretic who is being contentious, not the one who holds fast to the faith once delivered to the saints. That is an important distinction.

This Bible-based distinction should be understood by all who participate in the topic called “apologetics”. The “heavy lifting “ requirement of apologetics is not for the faint of heart. Just as it is an act of doing self-harm for someone to attempt to lift weights over one’s head for which one is not prepared to do through exercise and conditioning at lower weights (hence the metaphor “heaving lifting”) so also must one prepare for the “earnest agonizing” of apologetics.

At the same time, it is my opinion that those who are unable to lift a weight of 20 pounds over his/head should not be making cat calls from the sidelines at those who are lifting the heaver weights over their own heads. Just as being able to make that agonizing physical endurance is not for everyone, but those who have the will power, discipline and endurance, so also is apologetics.

It is really not something to take lightly (pun intended).

 

[By Grace]

PART TWO: Contending, Contentions and Apologetics

I noticed that there are 13 or so visits to the OP, but no one responded. Nothing can be proved from that (it is a logical error), so I plan to continue posting more stuff.

Acts 3: 11 And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.

12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?

13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.

14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;

15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.

18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

This is a snippet from Peter’s Pentecost Sermon which happened 48 days after the Crucifixion, and 50 days after the Resurrection; it was on a Sunday morning about 9 AM. This a strong indicator (the best IMO) for the worship of Jesus to be on a Sunday, but that is another and different matter as is the issue of “speaking in tongues”.

His audience was the people who watched with awe that they heard the Disciples and Apostles speaking in the own native languages of the listeners, and not in Greek or Aramaic, the latter being the language of the “Holy Lands” then.

So after explaining to the people that the Disciples were not drunk, as they supposed, they were actually fulfilling the prophecy mentioned in Joel. Holy Spirit gave a miracle, and Peter was the conduit whereby a lame man was healed. That is essentially what Peter told the people in Acts 3:11-12.

In 3:13-15, Peter is scolding the people because they did not heed the message, nor the Person of Jesus. Peter makes the link between Abraham, Isaac, plus Jacob with Jesus Christ, and paraphrased, he was saying that if you believe in those three, you have to also believe in Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God. But they did not believe, and they crucified Jesus, choosing to release a known murderer instead of the Son of God.

Even though y’all did that, y’all saw Jesus after His resurrection, so there really is no excuse for any of youse.

Typical of the pattern of Peter’s writings, his sermon seemingly makes a quick jump to another subject. It is not really something different because those verses form a platform on which verse 16 rests.


Peter is answering their question about why the Disciples and Apostles seem to be drunk so early in the morning. Referring to himself as “this man”, Peter gives all the credit to Jesus Christ, and then goes further to state that what he is saying is absolute truth due to the faith given to himself through a gift from Jesus.

The important phrase in this verse in this verse is “perfect soundness”. Perfect is easily understood as meaning “nothing further can be added because the things that Peter say cannot be improved upon by anyone. (Another side light to note here is that this a very strong indicator of Biblical inerrancy.) Then there is the word translated “soundness”.

It has nothing to do with anything auditory. The word is used only 12 times in the NT, and according to an intermediate-level Greek Lexicon means “to be correct in one’s views, with the implication of such a state being positively valued—‘to be correct, to be sound, to be accurate”

Thus Peter is telling them that He is speaking the words of Jesus Christ to them, in their presence, and that these words are what we call “sound doctrine”. The result of this approach is that Peter is saying, “if you argue with me, you are arguing against Jesus Christ, who gave me these words. Reject them at your peril; my words are doctrinally sound”.