Apologetics
Last weekend I went to a conference (although I hesitate to call it that since there were only about 20 of us there) in Jacksonville. It was the First Annual Faith and Functionality Conference to be exact. It was a great trip. I had a lot of fun at the conference as well as just shootin’ the bull with my friend Nick
( Read more... )
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mothwentbad/66359.html?thread=337207#t337207
at first, you write that sanctification and original sin are contradictory. that's fine, as far as it goes, and i'd welcome a point like that in a conversation. you might even demonstrate the reasonableness of your claim (if you were into proving your own beliefs). but you've clearly crossed the line when you claim a simultaneous belief in original sin and sanctification is but a tool to shame people. it sounds like a tired old attack against christianity as sadomasochistic cult, but it's an attack nonetheless.
on to mahf's point. he might have included a better, but still incomplete, definition of apologetics that carter himself mentioned: "the branch of theology concerned with removing honest obstacles to belief in Christ." in the other definition, we could imagine, in fact we've both seen people proposing logical arguments FOR belief in Christ. mahf alludes to this definition when he says apologetics only speaks to why NOT to believe in Christ, not why to believe in him. carter's and mahf's point is something like one of your points: people simply do not come to Christ because they heard a great argument for why not to disbelieve in him.
in fact, people come to Christ for a variety of reasons. i have come to believe that most come to Christ because the narrative of Scripture, hebrew and christian, rings true, and because Christ invites them to take that story as their own, and provides the means to do so. however they come to a belief in Christ, they may still have any number of objections, both objective and subjective (e.g. objective: virgin birth? you shitting me?; subjective: why'd He let my dad die?). many people will deal with these objections by attacking christian teaching; apologetics exist merely as Christianity's answers to those objections. and i'll tell you from personal experience that all the apologetics in the world don't mean shit til you seriously try to respond to Christ.
hopefully i've made clear several points: first, that carter's and mahf's point was in fact that apologetics takes a merely negative goal: to remove obstacles to, not prod toward a belief in Christ. second, that you're right about arguing into a belief: the bible itself seems to create the church, and invite belief by telling stories. third, everyone attacks from time to time; everyone truly believes their beliefs are defensible. just so long as we understand that in the context mahf's talking about, we'll be allright.
+nick+
Reply
Leave a comment