As time has gone by, I have felt more and more that the church needs to spend a little more time on internal affairs rather then deal with external threats.  The reason being that I think in many cases, the external 'threats' are directly the result of failures to take care of business 'at home.'  In some respects I agree with your essay (admitting that I ended up skimming starting round the middle...) but on the other hand the implication seems to be that  intellectual matters are irrelevant.  But our intellect is a part of our being.  It cannot be denied.  It may be something that is corrupted- it certainly is- but we do not dismiss aspects of our nature that God created merely because it is corrupted.

Your call to merely return to reading the New Testament (your second essay, to atheists) begs the question, "But why should I care about the New Testament?"  I don't think only the atheists ask this question, but young Christians as well.  Without a compelling reason to even consider Christianity they will move on.  We see them moving on.  If indeed Jesus rose from the dead, however, that changes.  Whether or not he did is open to debate.  Paul issues a logical argument in 1 Cor 15... if Christ is not raised, we believe in vain.  This follows his apologetic:  "he appeared to thus and thus and thus and thus and then to me, one who initially persecuted the church."

I agree with you to a degree about the emphasis on evolution, and even some of the emphasis given to certain social issues.  However, I'm not prepared to make myself comfortable with the notion (again in your second essay) that some people will just end up as atheists.  I don't want to resign myself to that when I think the arguments and evidences are weak.  Not putting up any fight at all I think shows weakness.

Just some initial comments that don't do justice to your lengthy and clearly well-thought out argumentation.

Welcome, Sam.

I read the first page and I just have to say, man that was just so refreshing!!!

I would suggest a few corrections but that would be minimal that it would not matter.  Basically, you just about mirrored how I look at this whole thing.

I hope you stick around.

Later on I will read your other writings.

To cutupmaster.  I sense your exuberance but is it really necessary that you try to hijack this thread when you already have a thread about this already?  Think about it.

Z

And...


I'm hoping to stimulate debate on this issue on this forum and elsewhere too.

But, my naivety aside, I've learned over 7 years of posting on various forums that not a lot of people like to read a lot of text! Also, human nature being what it is, many are content with what they already understand or have been spoon fed to date, and this regardless of the context. Also, I strongly suspect that a fair number of those who like to debate have a somewhat lukewarm attitude to following Christ. This is partly observational on my part. If pushed on key issues of faith and daily commitment, what emerges? I hear lukewarm makes God sick! "Examine yourselves..." But anyway...

This particular essay - http://www.slashedcanvas.co.uk/essays/essays6.htm - is a developed theme over 3 pages. This careful development highlights the following crucial issues:

(1) The uniformity of The New Testament and how it clearly defines what a Christian actually is (in my opinion this is often unfairly undermined by atheists who cast their net much too widely when defining "a Christian" and criticise those who insist on defining the word in a New Testament context, which is the best context available!)

(2) The preoccupation with intellectual propositions (apologetics) over the simple (and powerful) spiritual essentials detailed in The New Testament

(3) The futility of the combative atheist's arguments against religion (not always because they're wrong in every detail, by the way!)

(4) The pervasive weaknesses in local churches that demonstrably interfere with the effectiveness of Bible doctrines and tarnish the Christian witness in society.

Personal bias can blind a person to necessities. I've been into Christian Apologetics too, but if the New Testament is true it (Apologetics) should be ditched in favour of a formula built around The Word of God (as defined by The New Testament) that is guaranteed to work regardless of the individual's bias and conditioning. It will work because God will always honour it and draw those He chooses.

I find Bible-based excuses for apologetics too weak to be sustainable. If Christians operated with a spiritual emphasis in the power and wisdom of God, according to The New Testament it would upend and bypass futile human reasoning and intellectualism. I'm certainly not against intellect or reason - I'm just pointing out it can't be a solid foundation for communicating the spiritual reality of God.

Essentially, it doesn't matter.

Sam

(3)[/b] The futility of the combative atheist's arguments against religion (not always because they're wrong in every detail, by the way!)

Futility ?  How so ?

Certainly, you don't expect anyone to become a Christian overnight.  It could take years and years in some cases.  If a person is miles and miles away from belief, what makes you think they're going to be willing to walk into that local church in the first place?  What do we do with those folks?  Write them off?

And what about the thousands of people leaving their local churches because of their perception that the things that they think about have no satisfactory answer?

Aha, I see. Thanks for your responses.

Sam,

I think Christian Apologetics is totally necessary.  I skimmed the book (post).  I have a simple view: we, as Christians, are planting seeds. We may not say much, but our words may spark questions and, yes, it may take years of watering, weeding, and fertilizing to see the fruits of labor.

Hello
 
Here's (at least) one major problem: using Apologetics when sharing with an unbeliever, undermine a particular aspect of evolutionary theory or atheistic scientific expostulation. But be aware that in the real world, honest atheists have what they believe to be credible documented answers to the Christian argument (if they are able to understand them correctly).

So, equal levels of honesty and intelligence are shooting off through society in opposite directions. Which is right? Is it what lay Christian apologists believe from reading books (hopefully written by qualified experts), or is it atheistic interpretations similarly grounded? Who can know for sure?

And with so many arguments and counter arguments saturating opposing world views, is it not safer and more sensible to simply share the straightforward Truth and allow God to spiritually work wherever and whenever He will? Will He get it wrong? Will His genuine work in the life of an unbeliever be open to interpretation and error? Will it be easier for some to understand than others? What kind of truth is this?

When seen in this light how can Christians ever claim "Christian Apologetics is totally necessary"?

This denies the whole trend of declining religiosity and the existence of countries like Sweden.  Even the Barna group finds the U.S. getting less and less religious with each generation, with little change in the generations as they age.

Tireless churches won't go away under the whip of persecution.  They become abandoned through lack of interest and are turned into pubs, like in Europe.

Yes, you're making a good point here. But...

I'm aware of this and would agree with you but I'm not denying the godless trend. There is indeed a very significant lack of interest in religion in modern society and it's growing, even though many still say they believe there is a God and pray in times of danger and stress.

The point I'm trying to make is this: where we find groups wanting to practise their faith no amount of law, education or anti-religious propaganda/protest will stop them. History shows clearly that time and time again in extreme circumstances religion tends to shift underground.

Take Dawkins for example who's appears to be leading some kind of atheist crusade against organised religion and the very notion of God. He would like to see religion removed from society altogether - a bit like smoking in public. But there are  countless numbers who will continue to practise their faith regardless and antagonistic measures will simply make them more focussed and better organised in any free society.

From a biblical point-of-view the absence of a stuffy, wishy-washy Christianised religion may not be so bad!

But those who wish to practise their faith will battle on. See if you can find an unabridged edition of Tortured for Christ by Richard Wurmbrand to see how it can pan out, even in very difficult circumstances. You're thinking about buildings which aren't the Church!


 

That was quick, ms.  :)

Let me put out a couple of passages:

"As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea.   On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue.  Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."  Acts 17:10ff.

Also, 18:4

"Every Sabbath [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks."

18:28

"For [Apollos] vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ."

Proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ is certainly within the realm of apologetics.  One might say that this was only drawing people to the Scriptures which proves the point, but of course these were people who already trust the Scriptures to begin with.  What about those who don't see why they should trust the Scriptures at all?  And what about:

"You are out of your mind, Paul!" [Festus] shouted.  ... "I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied.  ".... The king is familiar with these things and I can speak freely to him.  I am convinced that none of this has escaped notice, because it was not done in a corner."  26:19-29, the whole thing is interesting in this context.

Not done in a corner means Agrippa check out my claims.

And then, 1 Corinthians 15, not writing to the Jews anymore, but to the Greeks:

"After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." vs 6

It is agreed by many that this is a challenge to the Corinthians that if they have any problem with what he's saying, they are welcome to take it up with the apostles and these 500.  In other words, an apologetic.  Following this, Paul says:  If the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.  And if Christ has not been raised your faith is futile;  you are still in your sins.... But Christ has been raised..."

This is an argument employing reason with the Corinthians.

It may be enough from the universe to infer the existence of God, but will that save anyone?  How would you get from believing in God to believing in Christ?  Apologetics can help all along the line.