Thoughts on apologetics and theological discussions
As a result of several threads in these forums, I realized that my understanding of the definitions of these two topics are not necessarily shared I think it worthwhile to share my understanding of the terms with some genuine curiosity as to others' understanding.
Apologetics:
My understanding of apologetics is that of defending one's faith in the face of a different point of view. To me, apologetics against another group is non-sensical -- apologetics would be how to explain one's own faith to someone of that faith NOT how to show someone of that faith why they are wrong.
from Wikipedia said:Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse.
Theological discussion:
I distinguish between a discussion about theology in which the focus is on the content of a particular view with no regard as to the accuracy of that view (factual subject to "standard' logic) and a discussion of theology where the focus is on the accuracy of a particular view or a comparison of multiple views to ascertain which theological belief is more accurate (subject to "belief revision" logic). This distinction seems more blurred in the current forums - not only in how information is presented but also in the response of the forum membership.
Occult
A third item that I find my vocabulary seems at odds with other users is "occult" ... I use the same distinction for magic and for occult -- they are broadly religious practices based on the belief that the actions of the practitioner can force/compel a specific response from gods/spiritual world. This is in contrast to the spiritual disciplines where the actions of the practitioner prepares the ground to invite a response from God -- where the initiative remains with God.
No, I would not defend any of the above as a formal definition but they are accurate representations of how the terms are used in my normal social circles and with some, but definitely not all, forum users. At the very least, they should serve as reminders that we need to know what an individual means by a term before getting in a tizzy.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Comments
-
This topic is interesting to me. Would you mind giving an example of how “apologetics“ was used non-sensically so that I could follow your thought process? If I am understanding correctly, you mean when it is used offensively? Some of the systematic theology guys, like Frame, include refutation/offense as a function of apologetics. Some don’t though.
0 -
Regardless of what you or anyone else may think about proper definitions, due to verses such as Acts 4:12 & 2 Pet. 1:20, there will always be those who turn "this is what I believe" into "and so that's why you are wrong".
Not without irony is the ESV version (the Logos default) of 2 Pet. 1:20, which completely fails to get the gist of what is being said, though it parrots the prevailing misunderstanding pretty well. The comment has nothing to do with people reading prophecy. It has to do with how the prophet wrote his prophecy. Summarized, prophecies of Scripture are dependable because they are revealed through inspiration, not made up by the prophets.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Greg Dement said:
. Would you mind giving an example of how “apologetics“ was used non-sensically so that I could follow your thought process?
Is the Mormon My Brother? by James R. White would be a book that was referred to as if it were apologetics that in my understanding of apologetics, it clearly is not. When phrases like "It brings Mormonism's unstable, changeable truth clearly into view, " is used in it's Amazon blurb, it is clearly an anti-Mormon book -- not a book about how a Mormon might critique, for example, a Southern Baptist's position written so a Southern Baptist would be better prepared to defend his position. The latter would be apologetics. After a series of pamphleteers placing anti-Catholic nonsense on car windshields during Mass, our parish responded with a six week class on apologetics using a fair amount of Karl Keating's Catholic Answer's material (see Catholic Answers Collection (21 vols.) - Verbum). Most of the time was spent on learning how Protestant denominations used words -- and how foolish either side could make the other look because of the lack of a common understanding of basic terms. So our apologetics class taught us (a) what we believed (b) what we meant by our terms (c) how to insure the person we were talking to had the same understanding of the terms ... or understood the differences in our understanding of the terms.
I rarely look to anyone as recent as John Frame for a definition of apologetics. To know what apologetics is, I would turn to resources such as these in Logos:
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I realized that my understanding of the definitions of these two topics are not necessarily shared
In broad lines I, at least, think in similar terms.
MJ. Smith said:To me, apologetics against another group is non-sensical
I think that many of us differ in this respect. What role do we ascribe to reason, while doing apologetics (= should apologetics be rational)? What role do empirical facts play in apologetics? Does apologetics leave any room for paradoxes of faith? How about revelation: what is it’s role (general, biblical, ecclesiastical)?
In the deeper level and philosophically speaking it may be a question of defining truth: is truth coherent (only internally?), correspondent (to some outer reality?) or practical (“it must be true because it works”)? These are questions that even many apologetes differ on – let alone philosophers.
In the more surface-level it may be a question of the relationship between argumentation and rhetoric. I think that the experience as to feeling something as non-sensical may many times be due to the fact that argumentation and rhetoric blur and mix up. Good rhetoric always includes logia, but many times pathos takes over and replaces whatever logical weaknesses one may have in one’s apologetics.
MJ. Smith said:I distinguish between a discussion about theology in which the focus is on the content of a particular view with no regard as to the accuracy of that view (factual subject to "standard' logic) and a discussion of theology where the focus is on the accuracy of a particular view or a comparison of multiple views to ascertain which theological belief is more accurate (subject to "belief revision" logic).
This brings into my mind the question of history in regard to theology: what role do historical (descriptive?) facts have on assessing theology (if any)? What defines accuracy, that is to say: accurate in relation to what?
MJ. Smith said:"occult" ... I use the same distinction for magic and for occult -- they are broadly religious practices based on the belief that the actions of the practitioner can force/compel a specific response from gods/spiritual world. This is in contrast to the spiritual disciplines where the actions of the practitioner prepares the ground to invite a response from God -- where the initiative remains with God.
This may be a true definition of magic inside Christianity. For me hearing the word magic brings out the word "manipulation" naturally. But nowadays you encounter very aggressive criticism of religion not from within Christianity but from without, from the outside, from the neo-Atheists and the like, who would not endorse your distinction between magic versus prayer/religion/spiritual disciplines. To them all these lump together as magical behavior.
Check out my channel with Christian music in Youtube:@olli-pekka-pappi. Latest song added on March 11th 2025, "If I Speak in the Tongues of Men and Angels – A Song on 1 Corinthians 13 - A More Excellent Way":
0 -
Sean said:
Polemics--although it is a rather broad term.
Polemics is a type of apologetics, but it shouldn't stand on its own, so that faith in Christ can fill the void that's left after refuting false beliefs.
0 -
Or is polemics part of dogmatic theology?
[quote]
POLEMICS
A sub-discipline of confessionally oriented *dogmatic theology intended to defend the doctrinal truths of specific Christian denominations or of various branches within them, over against others. Thus polemics are essentially inter- and intra-confessional. The discipline flourished in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, as each new denomination sought to define itself as precisely as possible, but the polemical approach to theology has been present throughout Christian history. Examples of significant inter- or intra-confessional theological debates include those between Catholics and Orthodox (over the filioque formula; see *Creeds), Lutherans and Reformed (over the Lord’s Supper; see *Eucharist), and in the Church of England between conformists and Puritans (over *church government).
BibliographyG. R. Elton (ed.), The New Cambridge Modern History II: The Reformation, 1520–1559 (Cambridge, 71976); C. Lindberg, The European Reformations (Oxford, 82002); R. A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1: Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids, 22003); R. E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, 2006); J. Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma, 1300–1700 (Chicago, 1984); C. R. Trueman and R. S. Clark (eds.), Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Carlisle, 1999).
C. C. SIMUŢ
C. C. Simuţ, “Polemics,” ed. Martin Davie et al., New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic (London; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press; InterVarsity Press, 2016), 683.From the same source:
[quote]
APOLOGETICS
The word ‘apologetics’ derives from a Greek term, apologia, and was used for a defence that a person like Socrates might make of his views and actions. The apostle Peter tells every Christian to be ready to give a reason (apologia) for the hope that is in him (1 Pet. 3:15). Apologetics, then, is an activity of the Christian mind which attempts to show that the gospel message is true in what it affirms. An apologist is one who is prepared to defend the message against criticism and distortion, and to give evidences of its credibility.
Unfortunately, today the term apologetics has unpleasant connotations for many people. On a superficial level it sounds as if we are being asked to apologize for having faith. At a deeper level it may suggest an aggressive or opportunistic kind of person who resorts to fair means or foul in order to get people to accept his point of view. Such misunderstandings of apologetics are regrettable in view of the importance of the subject. A sound defence of the faith was important in the NT as it also is today.
The book of Acts presents the apostles engaging non-Christians in debates and arguments concerning the truth of the gospel (Acts 17:2–4; 19:8–10), and it is no exaggeration to say that most of the NT documents were written for specific apologetic reasons. They were written to commend the faith to one group or another, and to clear up questions that had arisen about the gospel.
Apologetic activities were vigorously pursued during the period of the early church and indeed throughout most of the church’s history. In the beginning it was necessary both to define what the church believed in the face of heretical tendencies, and to offer an explication of its basis in rationality to enquirers and critics of different kinds. Since many of the *apologists were converts themselves—men such as *Justin, *Clement and *Augustine—they knew what was needed to commend the faith to outsiders. Believers also needed to be strengthened against the impact of hostile criticisms. It would be true to say that apologetics stood proudly alongside *dogmatics as two indispensable responses to the challenges of the age. It cannot be otherwise in a period of missionary expansion.
Early apologetics were generally either political or religious. The political apologies were designed to win acceptance, as well as a measure of toleration and legitimacy for Christianity in society, while the religious apologies were intended to win converts from both Judaism and paganism. Of necessity, such writings had to be flexible and respond to specific issues just as they do today. Among the practitioners of the art of apologetics we may number some of the finest minds and personalities: Augustine, *Anselm, *Thomas Aquinas, *Pascal, *Butler, *Newman and C. S. *Lewis. Their work contains a great variety of approaches and styles of argument, but what characterizes it all is boldness and confidence in the truth of the biblical message and its relevance to human history and philosophy.
In the modern period, however, apologetics has suffered a severe setback. It encountered in the European *Enlightenment a spirit of scepticism towards theology and metaphysics and a wholesale assault upon Christian beliefs. The apologetic arguments of earlier centuries were subjected to withering critique by men like *Hume, and many came to feel that the whole of Christianity needed to be revised and reworked. *Kant declared that the human mind was incapable of knowledge beyond the phenomenal realm. In future, he said, theology would have to be content to function within the limits of reason and reduce its claims to knowledge. A gauntlet was thrown down in the path of apologetics. Religion can be practised in the realm of existence or morality, but it cannot be advanced, as previously, on supposedly rational grounds.
The Enlightenment created a severe crisis for Christianity. In its wake, religious *liberalism sought to operate within the limits Kant had indicated, accepting the implications which this would have for Christian thinking. This led to the kind of revisionism which is familiar from the work of Paul *Tillich, Rudolf *Bultmann and John A. T. *Robinson. Even among classical Christians, the effect of the Enlightenment critique was clearly seen in a new hesitancy towards apologetics. In *Kierkegaard and *Barth one sees a kind of orthodoxy which does not rely upon apologetic arguments at all, but seeks to rest the claim of Christianity solely upon the faith-commitment.
But there has also been a resurgence of apologetics. Most widely read have been the writings of C. S. Lewis, but others such as Francis A. Schaeffer and Timothy Keller have stimulated popular interest in defending the faith. Others who have contributed at a more technical level include E. J. Carnell (1919–1967), Basil Mitchell (1917–2011), Alvin Plantinga (b. 1932), Richard Swinburne (b. 1934) and Keith Ward (b. 1938). John Polkinghorne (b. 1930), Francis Collins (b. 1950) and Alister McGrath (b. 1953) are among those who have taken up the specialist area of Christian apologetics in the light of modern science.
BibliographyC. Brown, Philosophy and the Christian Faith (London, 1969); idem, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Grand Rapids and Exeter, 1984); E. J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, 1952); F. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York, 2006); A. Dulles, A History of Apologetics (Philadelphia, 1971); C. Campbell-Jack and G. J. McGrath (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics (Leicester, 2006); N. L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, 1988); idem, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, 1999); T. Keller, The Reason for God (New York, 2008); P. Kreeft, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, 1994); G. R. Lewis, Testing Christianity’s Truth Claims: Approaches to Christian Apologetics (Chicago, 1976); A. McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism (New York, 2004); J. Polkinghorne, Faith, Science and Understanding (London, 2000); R. Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2nd edn (New York, 1991); C. van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia, 1955); K. Ward, God and the Philosophers (Minneapolis, 2009).
C. H. PINNOCK
C. H. Pinnock, “Apologetics,” ed. Martin Davie et al., New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic (London; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press; InterVarsity Press, 2016), 49–51.It appears that there is inconsistency across theological streams.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari said:
But nowadays you encounter very aggressive criticism of religion not from within Christianity but from without, from the outside, from the neo-Atheists and the like, who would not endorse your distinction between magic versus prayer/religion/spiritual disciplines. To them all these lump together as magical behavior.
I enjoyed your response as giving food for thought. For this particular issue, I find it easy to disarm these people by insisting that the conversation begin with human experience and perennial philosophy in its broadest sense. The issues look very different if you lift them out of a particular theological vocabulary and insist they explain the universal human experience. This is the level of apologetics I enjoy.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I thought that Logos provided a different forum for these sorts of discussions. In fact, I think that the first point in the guidelines specifically statements something like, "Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc."
0 -
Gregory Lawhorn said:
"Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc."
But then we need training on how to use those tools. And we need to be reminded that the "dictionaries" used by two different "groups" have totally different "descriptions" of the same [or so called same] words. [so we need both "dictionaries" in our library]
For a (hopefully) safe example: what do you think of when you hear the words 'dog' or 'cat'?
And how many different dogs and cats are there?
I see the reason for this thread as a warning that words do not mean the same thing to different "groups" when they talk AT others rather than TO others. [and that is why my Logos library is 1/3 'X', 1/3 'Y' and the rest 'Z'. I like to hear what 'X' has to say rather then what 'Y' says about 'X']
0 -
Sticking carefully to the guidelines!
There are a couple of books available in Logos that I've found very helpful.
The first, by Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman, deals with the various approaches to apologetics. This is probably more oriented towards the Protestant world, but sets out (from memory) four different approaches to apologetics.
The second, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli is broader, but might be of more interest to you, MJ, as Kreeft is a Catholic convert. It's quite a tome, but one that I enjoyed greatly when I read it eight or nine years ago.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli
There's also a wider debate going on (at least among Protestants) about what apologetics should look like (if anything) in the culture we inhabit now. I had an interesting evening where I played videos of William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel and John Lennox to a group I was leading. The older ones loved William Lane Craig's very combative and logical approach, while the younger ones loved Lennox's avuncular and irenic approach but couldn't abide what they saw as smugness from Lane Craig and were somewhat put off by Strobel.
There are also other resources available in Logos by Norman Geisler and Gary Habermas that I've found helpful in the past.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
To know what apologetics is, I would turn to resources such as these in Logos:
Even a well behaved Apologist like Justin Martyr can go into an attack on Paganism in 1 Apol 21. And he has biblical example of this going back to at least Isaiah 40's attack on idolatry, and Philosophical examples of this going back to at least Socrates. The thing is that the Roman Emperor for whom this work is said to be written would have recognized the Philosophical examples - and this even fits into Justin's portrayal of Christianity as bringing the wisdom of the Philosophers to the people. Not all the Apologists in those collections seem quite as well behaved though.
Back when I was in school I was taught that discussion really begins when you can state what your opponent believes in a way that they will say, yes, that is what I believe. And so you need to make at least a good faith effort to do this before moving on to state why you find that objectionable. It saddens me when too many modern "apologists" don't even seem interested in the process, and instead just go to the "gotcha" moment. We are supposed to follow a more excellent way...
That is why I edited the quote in my signature here years ago. The original is an attack on John Calvin and Calvinism - and while the passage says something I find important about the Lutheran understanding of the Gospel, it is not appropriate to go into theological warfare with guns blazing in my signature...
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
So our apologetics class taught us (a) what we believed (b) what we meant by our terms (c) how to insure the person we were talking to had the same understanding of the terms ... or understood the differences in our understanding of the terms.
There is some great wisdom here. Definitions are critical and understanding one's own definitions is the first step, followed by trying to understand how a different point of view defines a term. If we would only take more time to clarify definitions we would communicate much better.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Amen to that brother
0 -
It seems to me that polemics can be a a valid tool within apologetics when used properly. But to use it properly, it needs two things:
1. An accurate presentation of the material one believes to be in error.
2. A charitable response in refuting it.
Unfortunately, neither tends to be present in the average internet discussion, so the FL guidelines against theological discussion seems wise.
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
Maybe Lexham Press could produce works like “What Mormons Believe,” “What Jehovah’s Witness Believe,” “What Muslims Believe,” etc., but not have me or someone who has done research write about it, but an actual leader or renowned scholar from that particular group. That way they can write what their core beliefs are and present them more accurately to people. By doing that, we could have several resources that can inform people as to what each group believes based on someone who can share what they actually believe and not the usual, “They told me this is what they believe.” It’s better to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. That would help a lot.
I think FL/Lexham Press could sell a lot because it would be different from the so called “Apologetics” books we currently have (e.g How to talk to a Mormon, How to Talk to a Jehovah’s Witness, How to talk to a Muslim, etc. without actually hearing the other side of the story).
Maybe they can hire someone from each group like they hired someone to do the Hebrew Pronunciation Addin.
My 2 cents!
DAL
0 -
DAL said:
Maybe Lexham Press could produce works like “What Mormons Believe,” “What Jehovah’s Witness Believe,” “What Muslims Believe,” etc., but not have me or someone who has done research write about it, but an actual leader or renowned scholar from that particular group. That way they can write what their core beliefs are and present them more accurately to people. By doing that, we could have several resources that can inform people as to what each group believes based on someone who can share what they actually believe and not the usual, “They told me this is what they believe.” It’s better to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. That would help a lot.
I think FL/Lexham Press could sell a lot because it would be different from the so called “Apologetics” books we currently have (e.g How to talk to a Mormon, How to Talk to a Jehovah’s Witness, How to talk to a Muslim, etc. without actually hearing the other side of the story).
Maybe they can hire someone from each group like they hired someone to do the Hebrew Pronunciation Addin.
My 2 cents!
DAL
I guess the potential pitfall is who do they ask and what standing would they have within the denomination in general. If the person chosen is a known dissenter from the group, that would stir up controversy. I would NOT be happy if—for example—an FL resource had Hans Küng writing a "What Catholics Believe" work. I imagine members of other religious groups would have similar objections.
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
Primarily I agree that apologetics is first to explain one’s own faith, but secondarily I think it includes contrasting your beliefs with another group’s beliefs, in a respectful manner.
Systematic argumentation and discourse, to me, includes, secondarily, contrasting one’s beliefs with another’s.
That means, first, we have to know our own faith well enough to define it, but also to have some correct understanding of another’s belief system, that we are talking to. This works better face to face, rather than online.
Our different groups use the same words but sometimes the meanings behind those words are different. To me, this is the biggest hurdle to overcome. Understanding what each of us mean by certain words/concepts/ideas in our own belief system. The words are the same, but the meanings are different.
We write too fast online (myself included), and reader’s can have their own interpretation that the originator did not mean (myself included).
Bob
0 -
DAL said:
Maybe Lexham Press could produce works like “What Mormons Believe,” “What Jehovah’s Witness Believe,” “What Muslims Believe,” etc., but not have me or someone who has done research write about it, but an actual leader or renowned scholar from that particular group. That way they can write what their core beliefs are and present them more accurately to people. By doing that, we could have several resources that can inform people as to what each group believes based on someone who can share what they actually believe and not the usual, “They told me this is what they believe.” It’s better to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. That would help a lot.
That kind of project is one I would be pleased to see, as long as it was done well.
(Incidentally, for those looking for "What Catholics Believe" and not wanting to wait for DAL's proposed project to come to fruition, I strongly recommend https://verbum.com/product/29612/youcat-youth-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.)
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
To me, apologetics against another group is non-sensical -- apologetics would be how to explain one's own faith to someone of that faith NOT how to show someone of that faith why they are wrong. [...] I distinguish between a discussion about theology in which the focus is on the content of a particular view with no regard as to the accuracy of that view (factual subject to "standard' logic) and a discussion of theology where the focus is on the accuracy of a particular view or a comparison of multiple views to ascertain which theological belief is more accurate (subject to "belief revision" logic).
Maybe I haven't understood you, but if you believe there is a legitimate place for what you call a discussion of theology then why not think there is a legitimate place for a discussion of different faiths or worldviews (i.e., to discuss the inaccuracies of another faith or worldview)?
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
J. Remington Bowling said:
Maybe I haven't understood you, but if you believe there is a legitimate place for what you call a discussion of theology then why not think there is a legitimate place for a discussion of different faiths or worldviews (i.e., to discuss the inaccuracies of another faith or worldview)?
You did misunderstanding me. I am saying that such works don't fall under "apologetics" ... I would put them under a branch of dogmatic/confessional theology OR history OR religious studies depending upon the approach of the author. I would NOT place them in the same category because the type of logic that applies is different - classical logic vs. belief revision logic. The former is oriented towards individual statements while the latter is more concerned with how an individual statement interacts with a cohesive system of beliefs.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Gregory Lawhorn said:
"Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc."
Hi Gregory.
Context is important. MJ posts in this threads seem to me are due to some answers she got in another thread:
https://community.logos.com/forums/p/199793/1159673.aspx#1159673
So if she is gathering information for a possible future development of an apologetic guide, I think is proper she clarifies terms, so that people understand what we are dealing with.
A poster in the apologetics guide thread articulated the issue nicely in my opinion:
PL posted:
"I don't know if this belongs to an Apologetics Guide, or a separate new guide, but you know those "3/4/5 Views on xyz" "Perspectives on xyz" books? It would be nice to have a starter guide on the many controversial / debated / unsettled issues/topics within the broader Christian faith, e.g. baptism, Communion, predestination, church government, supernatural gifts, church & politics, end times, divorce and remarriage, women ordination, etc etc. (all the stuff we're not supposed to talk about on this forum).
Eventually I'd like to see all these specialty guides be centralized in one place, i.e. Factbook, rather than having Theology Guide, Counseling Guide, Topic Guide, Sermon Starter Guide, as well as the one(s) proposed here."
So I can understand trying to clarify the subject the way MJ is doing it, even if it means bending the guidelines a bit.
It seems to me that MJ does not want to polemicize, but to find a correct conceptual framework where apologetics can be fully explored for comparison, understanding, etc.
Of course this is just my opinion as a non-expert.
Peace and grace.
0 -
I realize this topic has a long, "glorious" history...but it is worth considering whether "apologizing" for YHWH is something He appreciates, or whether it is something that enrages Him. I don't think He wants "your" defense. I'm pretty sure He rejects it. It is a poor assumption to think that "be ready to give an answer" equates to "defending ':Elohhiym". Explaining His will and defending what you believe aren't the same thing. 'Iyyohbh's three miserable comforters all defended ':Elohhiym, and all it got them was ire. Job 13:12 is His opinion of "human defenses of His character". Rather, any defense we present should be for ourselves to Him...based on how well we fulfill His will. That's what 'Iyyohbh did, and he was ultimately commended for it, after his eyes were finally opened to what he didn't understand of YHWH.
For the sake of clarity, YHWH simply needs no defense and He never offers a defense. He expresses His will and expects a pliable response. If He doesn't get it, He eliminates the problem. Suggesting His need of a defense is offensive to Him.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
'Iyyohbh's
I do not know what this means.
David, when I see your name, I purposely seek to read your postings, as you are lucid writer.
But, when you have these type of words too prevalent, I stop reading, because I do not understand.
Perhaps, you could transliterate as you write. Thank you.
0 -
Sorry for confusion. I thought the reference to the "miserable comforters" would make it clear. 'Iyyohbh is the Hebrew name for Job.
It's pronounced ee-YOBE.
EDIT: Ha, I noticed that I said there were four of them instead of three. I'm sure that didn't help. I guess I was thinking of ':Eliyhuu' (Elihu), too.
It's pronounced eh-lee-WHO.
I fixed it.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
Sorry for confusion. I thought the reference to the "miserable comforters" would make it clear. 'Iyyohbh is the Hebrew name for Job.
It's pronounced ee-YOBE.
I guessed it might be Job, but was unsure, as I have no formal Christian training. I would have incorrectly assumed 'lie-YOBBAH.'
Thanks for the help, David.
0 -
Yep, the sans serif "I" can sneak up on you. Clearer in a serif font.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
For the sake of clarity, YHWH simply needs no defense and He never offers a defense. He expresses His will and expects a pliable response. If He doesn't get it, He eliminates the problem. Suggesting His need of a defense is offensive to Him.
Hi David Paul:
We all come from different traditions and experiences. I see your point, but for some of us, we believe there is a mandate to give a reasonable response when asked about our faith.
There are conceptual ideas that imply that a faith not analyzed in deep, is not really an acceptable faith, since mature stages of faith require understanding well the principles behind one's choice of theological constructs.
Salvation is individual, and it seems that the NT encourages one to look closely at what we believe, why we do (or should), and what to do in real life praxis about it.
Apologetics helps provide a framework to analyze faith. God is a God of clarity, order, and coherence, so we must see that our chosen system reflects that.
Jesus did not seem to be upset when disciples wanted to know more about the Kingdom, God, the prophecies, etc. On the contrary, He provided much needed guidance, and expects of His disciples to teach His commands, which may entail giving reason the why of some.
Different angle .
God is good and His h:hesed is forever. He is patient with us, since remembers we are dust on the way of becoming living stones in the New Temple of God (the Body of Christ).
That does not mean we will become the Spirit that dwells in that New Temple. Meaning we will never have self-existence, which is a non-communicable attribute of God and we will never have Aseity like He has.
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
Jesus did not seem to be upset when disciples wanted to know more about the Kingdom, God, the prophecies, etc. On the contrary, He provided much needed guidance, and expects of His disciples to teach His commands, which may entail giving reason the why of some.
Explaining YHWH and His purposes and intentions is perfectly fine; it's even obligatory. Defending YHWH is abhorrent to Him. Lk. 21:14-15 NASB95 seems to be a pretty clear injunction against prepared defenses.
Hamilton Ramos said:Apologetics helps provide a framework to analyze faith.
Does it? It seems to attempt much more, wandering into inappropriate realms. It seems to muddy waters rather than clear the air. Specifically, it seems to be a tool (which some might perceive as a weapon) for particularized self-justification. There are other -ologies that are better suited to appropriately occupy people's attention. Bibliology and theology are two that come to mind.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
Does it? It seems to attempt much more, wandering into inappropriate realms. It seems to muddy waters rather than clear the air. Specifically, it seems to be a tool (which some might perceive as a weapon) for particularized self-justification.
True.
Sometimes it looks like if Christ is left out for Churchianity.
Peace and grace.
0 -
Apologetics exists to correct misconceptions and remove difficulties that a person can have that block them from considering the truth. It obviously doesn’t replace Grace. Removing intellectual difficulty ≠ belief.
So, as an example, “Catholic apologetics“ might focus on debunking false claims or putting teachings or statements from a different historical era into context to show why they’re reasonable. I’m sure that non-Catholics can think of their own examples too.
I think some people confuse apologetics with evangelism or proselytizing (the two are not the same thing).
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
David Wanat said:
Apologetics exists to correct misconceptions and remove difficulties that a person can have that block them from considering the truth. It obviously doesn’t replace Grace. Removing intellectual difficulty ≠ belief.
Hi David, that sounds right. But until David Paul explained his point of view, I had not considered an issue:
Are we living epistles?
What good is to reason through arguments and give evidences, if our actions speak louder than our words?
So one may approach a person from an oriental religion and talk pretty and all, yet the person can probably see that there is a difference between a Christian member of Christianity, and a Church member part of Churchianity.
That right there would be a turn off to them most likely, if they perceive one is selling denomination, instead of proclaiming Christ and the Holy Spirit (Our Paraclete).
Are we followers of Christ or followers of a particular tradition? and this is particularly true when that tradition seems to be at odds with Jesus' teaching.
As far as living epistles, take Saint Francis, Muslims were so impressed with him, that told him that if all christians were like him, there would be no conflict. What kind of apologetics did he use to elicit such good impression on them?
Peace and grace.
0 -
It seems to me that “Churchianity” can be a loaded term used to make ad hominem attacks. So I’d be careful in using it.
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
David Wanat said:
It seems to me that “Churchianity” can be a loaded term used to make ad hominem attacks.
Of course...any tool can be misused...but that's is precisely the point. Apologetics often descends into (or never rises above) ad hominem attacks. And, of course, one can try to argue that "real" apologetics is nothing like that, but tell that to the abusers who insist they are "merely" engaging in apologetics. Aside from that, there's the unavoidable fact that the Church, pretty much just like Israel, has a checkered history consisting of many more black squares than white. It seems to me that Christianity needs a widespread Churchianity to be a real, enduring specter, for otherwise all the boundless mess must then be laid at its own feet. Perhaps it should be? This condition ought not be news. Many of the books available for purchase in Logos declare as much in their own marketing blurbs, offering their own contents as a remedy.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:David Wanat said:
It seems to me that “Churchianity” can be a loaded term used to make ad hominem attacks.
Of course...any tool can be misused...but that's is precisely the point. Apologetics often descends into (or never rises above) ad hominem attacks. And, of course, one can try to argue that "real" apologetics is nothing like that, but tell that to the abusers who insist they are "merely" engaging in apologetics. Aside from that, there's the unavoidable fact that the Church, pretty much just like Israel, has a checkered history consisting of many more black squares than white. It seems to me that Christianity needs a widespread Churchianity to be a real, enduring specter, for otherwise all the boundless mess must then be laid at its own feet. This condition ought not be news. Many of the books available for purchase in Logos declare as much in their own marketing blurbs, offering their own contents as a remedy.
You seem to be confusing “apologetics“ with “polemics.” The former is a defense of what is right. The latter is an attack on what is wrong. Both are tools, and you’ll see them used in the Epistles of St. Paul. Both can be used or misused. They are properly used with love of neighbor with the aim of teaching. They’re wrongly used when we reduce the person we are in discussion with as an enemy to be conquered. You seem to be focused on the abuse of apologetics, which is not a reason to reject it properly used. It’s a reminder that we need to teach the Greatest Commandment to those who evangelize.
CS Lewis’ Apologist’s Evening Prayer makes that point clear:
[quote]
From all my lame defeats and oh! much more
From all the victories that I seemed to score;
From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;
From all my proofs of Thy divinity,
Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead
Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.
From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee,
O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.
Lord of the narrow gate and the needle’s eye,
Take from me all my trumpery lest I die.WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
David Wanat said:
Let's inject hymn texts instead.
0 -
David Wanat said:
Why inject politics into the discussion?
Are you kidding? A ball teed up that pretty? Yeah, I'm gonna take a swing at it!! [:P]
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Ok, getting back to the subject of the thread, I found a very useful resource that unfortunately is not in Logos.
Morley, Brian K. Mapping Apologetics: Comparing Contemporary Approaches. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, an imprint of Intervarsity Press, 2015.
Lovely diagrammatic synthesis of the different approaches to apologetics.
Maybe a future apologetics guide can follow a mind map like approach using a diagram like the one found in Morley's book, so that one can follow up on the sub topics.
So, from my perspective, comparing the story of origen of the world and our present historical context as formulated in a Biblical worldview, makes more sense than the origen of the world found in the narratives of the other worldviews.
Then the meaning of our present condition, makes more sense when understand that is due to a fallen condition, due to our desire to operate independent of God.
Then our destiny: God opens His arms to any that wants to go back in track with His original life project for us: to live in constant communion with Him (for help and direction), and to live in harmony with Creation.
The rebellion against Him, where creatures want to live independently of Him, obviously is not working.
Now as Mr. Morley mentions in his book, experience as apologetic has not being developed and communicated intensively.
I see in the Biblical worldview that many humans had real experience with God, being such events, the basis on which the traditions rose.
So what is ultimate reality, (God's of course), and how do we know is true? By experience seems to be a good candidate.
Jesus does not lie, and the Bible cannot be broken:
John 14:23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. ESV
0 -
David Wanat said:
It seems to me that “Churchianity” can be a loaded term used to make ad hominem attacks. So I’d be careful in using it.
Maybe there is something that needs to be brought to the foreground for the understanding and edification of the sheep?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Churchianity
Are we commanded to love God with all our mind? which would include honest self-assessment to see we are not missing the mark?
Is critical thinking something God wants us as believers to engage on, and mostly to check our praxis?
I guess all of this is also part of apologetics, because before you can talk to the least, the last, and the lost about God, we need to check that our theological constructs and orthopraxis do jibe with revealed truth in the Bible and consonant with the Character and Nature of God.
I would be more careful of not coming across as someone that stifles Synagogue Berean attitudes of checking things to see if they are so.
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:David Wanat said:
It seems to me that “Churchianity” can be a loaded term used to make ad hominem attacks. So I’d be careful in using it.
Maybe there is something that needs to be brought to the foreground for the understanding and edification of the sheep?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Churchianity
Are we commanded to love God with all our mind? which would include honest self-assessment to see we are not missing the mark?
Is critical thinking something God wants us as believers to engage on, and mostly to check our praxis?
I guess all of this is also part of apologetics, because before you can talk to the least, the last, and the lost about God, we need to check that our theological constructs and orthopraxis do jibe with revealed truth in the Bible and consonant with the Character and Nature of God.
I would be more careful of not coming across as someone that stifles Synagogue Berean attitudes of checking things to see if they are so.
Interestingly enough, the Wiktionary entry recognizes it as a derogatory term. So, perhaps it’s not in keeping with the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves to use it?
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
David Wanat said:
Interestingly enough, the Wiktionary entry recognizes it as a derogatory term. So, perhaps it’s not in keeping with the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves to use it?
Now you got me confused. From all posters you were one of the principals talking about TRUTH, the ultimate goal of apologetics.
But then when a blind spot appears, in which all of us may be at fault, then is politically incorrect to call it to foreground?
So is it the same with Sin, Hell, Hypocrisy, etc.?
Churchianity is a sin that we must repent of. We all need to identify it and see to what extent it is present in our traditions. By itself is not a problem, because we do have to have a system to perpetuate the tradition.
Proper response is to fast and pray and to strike a balance pleasing to God in our particular circumstance: should we move to 70% outreach discipleship, and only allow 30% to stay for churchianity purposes?
Each case will be different and God can understand the particular situation of each.
What is not acceptable is to turn the eye the other way and say: do not mention such concept because is politically incorrect. And even worst not analyze if we are guilty of it, and if we are, not trying to improve the situation to be more consonant with God's requirements.
I am glad that David Paul engaged us in robust exchange, because most of the times that is where real key issues come to light.
The whole experience has opened new research areas for me, and I am glad, I can say that the experience has help me edify more.
0 -
I do not appreciate having my thread hijacked for insults.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:David Wanat said:
Interestingly enough, the Wiktionary entry recognizes it as a derogatory term. So, perhaps it’s not in keeping with the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves to use it?
Now you got me confused. From all posters you were one of the principals talking about TRUTH, the ultimate goal of apologetics.
But then when a blind spot appears, in which all of us may be at fault, then is politically incorrect to call it to foreground?
It's one thing to express concern over an issue. It's quite another to use a derogatory blanket term for it. "Churchianity" is one such term. "Politically incorrect" is another. These only seek to discredit the target of the term.
I've already pointed out my opinion that the Greatest Commandment—especially charity towards others—needs to be taught when doing apologetics or polemics. Perhaps that should include this discussion.
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
David how does Peter’s charge fit into what you say is clear from the Luke passage?
1 Peter 3:15 (NASB95): 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.
Peter says we should always be ready with a defence, an apology, for the faith within us.
Theology can be abused as much as you suggest apologetics can be so should we abandon theology also? Done well apologetics is simply asking beginning with what do I believe and moving forward the question of why do I believe it. God created us with free will and the ability to reason. With that ability that sets us apart from the rest of creation we do both theology and apologetics.
Without even thinking about it you have given your own apologetics here for why you believe what you believe. You have given a defense in order to justify the position you hold.
The Luke passage you raise is something we should consider in terms of what Jesus meant to those whom he spoke and then consider how they might apply to us today. But given Peter after he had most likely heard Jesus speak these words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we should be ready to given an apology for the faith within us, I am not sure that I would conclude Jesus was meaning Apologetics was offensive to God. After all Jesus gave an apologetic from the scriptures of who he was and what he had come to do on the road to Emmaus post resurrection, on what those disciples should believe about him and why they should believe it.
David Paul said:Hamilton Ramos said:Jesus did not seem to be upset when disciples wanted to know more about the Kingdom, God, the prophecies, etc. On the contrary, He provided much needed guidance, and expects of His disciples to teach His commands, which may entail giving reason the why of some.
Explaining YHWH and His purposes and intentions is perfectly fine; it's even obligatory. Defending YHWH is abhorrent to Him. Lk. 21:14-15 NASB95 seems to be a pretty clear injunction against prepared defenses.
Hamilton Ramos said:Apologetics helps provide a framework to analyze faith.
Does it? It seems to attempt much more, wandering into inappropriate realms. It seems to muddy waters rather than clear the air. Specifically, it seems to be a tool (which some might perceive as a weapon) for particularized self-justification. There are other -ologies that are better suited to appropriately occupy people's attention. Bibliology and theology are two that come to mind.
0 -
David Wanat said:
It's one thing to express concern over an issue. It's quite another to use a derogatory blanket term for it. "Churchianity" is one such term. "Politically incorrect" is another. These only seek to discredit the target of the term.
The concept of focusing too much on things not aligned with the great commission is clear, so when there is an inordinate concentration in the institution itself, in detriment of trying to meet, and explain the viability of Christianity to people that needs it, what name would you give it?
David Paul disagrees with having pre-fabricated arguments, trying to justify systems that do not seem to jibe with the commission thrust of the Bible. What would be the right conceptual names for the whole problem identified there?
What would be the appropriate conceptual names for overwatching to see that institutions align well with what Christ ordered to do?
Would the same be a required part of apologetics to arrive at truth? Or is religion a matter of overwatching individual believers with no checking if the institutions that they are associated with are well aligned with Christ's teaching?
What would be an alternative to a derogatory blanket term? unfaithfulness to the mission called for by Christ in structural and organizational endeavors?
How to properly deal with such problem, and is it a part of the confusion about apologetics?
Is the faith in us the one to be defended, or is it systems, structures, and the like that have built around such faith?
0 -
Please drop it guys -- this thread was intended to expose the different definitions of apologetics that user have for the purpose of determining whether or not it would be possible to propose an apologetics guide that would be useful to a broad swath of users. It has moved so far from that to have ceased to be of any use for its intended purpose. I wish that as the OP, I had the ability to block posts after the thread gets derailed.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I wish that as the OP, I had the ability to block posts after the thread gets derailed.
Be careful what you wish for...censorship is not the beautiful thing it might appear to be right now.
When a can of worms get's opened you have to be prepared to accept what might crawl out. And what is crawling out is an answer to your original question - A broad swath of users are going to have a broad swatch of opinions on an apologetics guide. Same as they do on the Theology Guide and the Counselling Guide - but we have them so I think there is value in an apologetics guide, there is most likely a silent broad swath of users who would find it useful to varying degrees or not use it at all and that's fine.
0 -
DIsciple II said:
Theology can be abused as much as you suggest apologetics can be so should we abandon theology also? Done well apologetics is simply asking beginning with what do I believe and moving forward the question of why do I believe it.
I've already said that explanation is needful and necessary. If that's all "apologia" is, great. But in practice, it often isn't. Call it "malpractice" if you want, but as one whose tendency is to defer to etymological foundations against the backlash and resistance of people who are "words are how they're used in practice" types (MJ has taken this side of the argument with me on occasion), the tables are hereby being turned. If much of what is marketed as apologetics isn't apologetics, then which one is right? The one adhering to original intent, or the one who is winning the practice war? That may just be a philosophical question, but the need to see what's what (from the Bible's perspective) and behave as expected (YHWH's expectations) remains the ultimate goal. My point is that semantic disputes aside, the "defending" aspect of "apo- // logia" (which is a very odd derivative semantic construct given the root meanings) is fraught with the potential for mishandling, which might well result in potentially negative outcomes for the persons who are engaging in active "defense". Just to be clear, doing the wrong thing for the "right" reasons almost always leads to loss--often a complete loss (of salvation), though occasionally it may receive a diminished salvation. With YHWH, good intentions only go so far and occasionally that isn't far enough. My ultimate point is that apologetics is potentially dangerous, and should be handled with supreme care. Assuming that "defending" is innocuous may have unintended and potentially drastic consequences.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0
