...it is a pattern we see in the NT.

One thing that has struck me is a basic folly built into human nature that we're all subject to too easily at times, and the above typifies it for me. Christian Apologists may well see a pattern in The New Testament because they're looking for it!

Balance can take a lot of discipline and self-denial.

I recently read a couple of essays on the necessity of water baptism for salvation. Written to a high standard these essays inadvertently toppled the clear balance of Scripture in an effort to defend the views of a particular church the authors subscribed to. Yes, unlike Apologetics, this is a minority view, but the principle and reasoning processes are depressingly similar. The authors have combed through The New Testament, and as they do they compile too few verses that, with a push, may be construed to support their particular view.

Texts out of context can be pretexts for all manner of interpretations.

I've previously seen the Book of Acts being used by Christian Apologists where we find followers of Christ standing their ground before religious folk and unbelievers in general. Then there are other crucial bits tied to the theory like 1st Peter and Isaiah ("reason together").

Being afforded the opportunity to stand well back and take in the bigger picture, I see that too much is being made of much too little in an effort to justify and support what individual Christians have already bought into.

Not only that, many like to read, study, write and generally express themselves publicly simply because it's part if their personal makeup. They have a natural propensity for it - me too! But it's so worrying that we can lose sight of ourselves to the point where, in our enthusiasm, we allow self to flourish over balance and temperance.

We do this even to the point of praying amiss that God would use us to His glory as we counteract the cults and the unacceptable atheistic manipulation of the sciences (even when this isn't actually the case!).

There is no inherent God-given power and infallibility in Apologetics. Yet, if we consider Scriptures true and inspired, the preaching of God's simple Truth according to His will and in the power of His Spirit passes all responsibility over to Him so He can work flawlessly. Human error and essentially biased interpretations, along with the endless wrangles of debates that follow Apologetics wherever it goes, are an irrelevancy in the dominating Context that flows from almost every page of The New Testament - unlike a context constructed into a formula from a piecemeal approach to Bible study.

I'm not meaninglessly involved in apologetic stratagems in an effort to deny the legitimacy of Apologetics! Far from it. I'm attempting to show that according to The New Testament God has provided a perfect non-intellectual way of interacting with those who don't yet believe. It will not have human flaws built into it before it even gets off the ground. It doesn't expose Christians to the sort of ridicule (some of it well-founded!) that follows Christian Apologetics wherever it goes.

Also, at a personal level, if I may, this is just one part of how I'm expressing myself before I move on to so something else.

Responses from several Christian Apologists strongly suggest to me they honestly consider Christian Apologetics to be God's work. So they are heavily into it, yet I wonder if their focus and drive has merely consolidated a rolling, powerful ethos that effectively suffocates objectivity. It certainly seems that way to me.

Anyway, thanks for listening and responding here. I appreciated the input.

Best regards,

Sam

 

Well, sorry for any confusion - it's something I didn't allow for. The main body of the above post was in fact written with a few other places in mind as well, so it's not unique to this forum.

I didn't intend to be personal! Honestly! That wouldn't be useful at all.

Your comments were something of a launching platform for a more generic response because apologists in general do believe there is a blueprint of sorts in The New Testament, like in Acts, for example. But I'm of the opinion (having been there) that they (apologists in general) construct this blueprint primarily because it fits the purpose. This just isn't healthy.

There's nothing dishonourable or unethical in this of course, but Apologetics doesn't have a sturdy foundation. It seems likely to me that in the minds of some it doesn't really have to, although I'd take issue with that approach especially when compared the balance of Scripture. Do Christians do the Word, or read it at bedtime and 'at church'?

It has proved surprisingly difficult for me to explain my position in all of this, primarily because my essay may be too much of a read! I appreciate this. But it's where I make the point as best I can.

I'd like to think that many apologists do indeed realise the Bible indicates a foolproof Spiritual way of sharing the reality of God - a way that works anytime God wills it, and when it doesn't seem to work Christians will accept He hasn't. It's a win-win situation, unlike poor Apologetics!

When carefully analysed, Apologetics by its very nature is questionable. Its earthly, limited usefulness is not reflected in its wide appeal among Christian intellectuals. To the vast majority of Christians it's an irrelevancy or a somewhat obscure side issue.

Preaching to the intellectual converted is a questionable pastime - time is precious - and using Apologetics to prove, or suggest, truth for unbelievers pales into insignificance beside New Testament doctrines and guidelines for Christian living and witnessing. God would be a limited Being if He could only get through by intellectual means.

We have to use our senses, yes, but God must do the work. Apologetics very naturally relies to a very great extent on human intellect and effort which is why it shows itself to be problematic and the source of vigorous debate, petty wrangles (on many forums) and even predictable ridicule. Its tarnished effectiveness doesn't justify the industry.

And what if according to the NT God has provided intellectual ways, too?

If God provides a perfect Way, why would He need lesser humanly flawed methods?

BUT, the very limited effects of Apologetics compared to God's method isn't in fact my main point. Apologetics is a petty distracting sidetrack to the many huge and obvious problems that are continually eating the very core out of The Church.


I can be contacted through my site anytime if anyone's is interested further. But I'm moving on to other more important things now, so I suppose we'll have to agree to differ... as befits gentlemen.

 

Goodbye, best regards and thanks again,

Sam

 

I think we'd both understand your perspective if you showed us how its done.

God loves you so much He sent His only Son to this earth.

If you accept Him as the only One Who can save you, and if you make Him Lord of your life in every area, turning to Him continually for guidance and strength, you will not perish.

God took all your badness and wrongdoings and punished Christ for them so that you, through trusting Him, may be set free from the power of sin and have eternal life with Him.

This approach blows Apologetics into the weeds, and God will always honour it. If the Bible is true, this is the perfect Way - it's not flawed in any detail.

Those who don't accept it are not accepted in Christ. Those God draws to Himself, who can understand, will be saved and born anew.

Aw shucks.  I was hoping you'd minister to Ben.  :)

"Somebody else talk to that PITA !!!"

lol, Ben.  Nah, you ain't so bad.  I actually agree with a lot of what Sam here is saying and if I thought you would give the Scriptures and its message half a listen I'd be more than happy to go there with you.  So far, it looks like you're willing to give it a quarter of a listen.    Much better then "even if the bible is true I won't believe it" like some atheists.  :)  On those types, I'm right with Sam.  :)

Well, here's my basic outline, repeated (for Samni if no one else.)  I see thousands of years of mistaken beliefs about all sorts of things throughout human history.  I see that the only way we have tentatively arrived at ideas about reality that hold up is by being specific about those ideas, what they definitely logically entail, and looking to check if observations fit.  Everything else just gives you plausible bunk.

For example, I'm sure you have noticed that I've hardly contributed to all these 'divine inference' threads.  I find the whole thing ridiculous.  It's proposing a hypotheses and then arguing about whether it seems plausible or not.  It's worthless intellectual noodling.  Make the inference, show what unexpected observations will result from this inference being true and what observations will NOT result from this inference being true, and go do those observations.  We already know that without doing that, any inference is very, very, very likely to be wrong - plausible or not.

So my beliefs are the results of these kinds of methods.  Scientific, mathematical, historical.  Fundamental ignorance + methods to reduce that ignorance => my beliefs.  Without a new method being demonstrated or some incredible scientific surprises, I don't see my beliefs coming anywhere near Christianity.

Well, you include 'historical' in that category of methodology.  Perhaps that is what you and I should talk about next.

Sure !  You start the thread, though.  Or we could derail this one further.  :)

ETA:  The last time I got in an argument on historicity of Jesus and the Gospels, I found out I was quoting from a Divinity School textbook to support my side.  I found it amusing.

The thread has been posted here:  http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php?topic=2412.0

I have not read any of the posts, just the first line of sntjohnny's first post, so this is probably completely off topic, but I believe that Christian apologetics is[/i] necessary to explain what Christians believe (it would not be clear otherwise) and to explain why Christians believe Jesus should be accepted as the messiah (it would not be clear otherwise), and how Christians explain the apparent contradictions and errors and falsehoods in the New Testament (they would tend to lead toward disbelief otherwise.
But that Christian apologetics is necessary proves[/i] the New Testament is NOT the new Covenant spoken of in Je4remiah 31:31, and thus several assertions of Christians fall into serious doubt, starting with the "excuse" that they give for why the NT permits such a diversion from what the Hebrew Bible teaches about God and what God said as recorded in the HB, and how they explain the CB's misquotations and mistranslations of the HB.

I agree with sntj to a point.  And with Sam to a point.

This is a lively discussion.. methinks.

Basically, Paul gave an argument in the letter of Romans, "how shall they hear?"... etc.

I would say that Apologetics is good when mixed with the realization that it is the power (spirit) that actually accomplishes the work... whether it be in the king, queen or pig boy!!

Remember that Paul said that God chose the mud to educate what the mud formed!! hah

You are just as vague and indecisive as ever I remember...