I've never been that into apologetics. Apologetics being the reason-based arguments for the defense of or proof of the Christian faith. It seems to me that there is a lot of "bad science" involved. Well-intentioned believers become convinced that the world will come to Jesus if they simply have a chance to lay out the air-tight case for Christianity. They become so eager to do this that they start throwing around unproven (if not unlikely) theories for things like the flood. "I heard somewhere" sorts of information gets passed quickly and widely as fact. It's not as though there hasn't been any credible work, but every bit of "bad science" seems to take us back further than good science is capable of bringing us forward. And it's not as if evolutionists are never guilty of the same thing, but that is none of my concern.
The whole idea of having an air-tight argument does not jive with me. Attempts to defend the faith often turn into intellectual jabs that do more to harm the faith than Darwin ever could have (I think of decals which have the ICTHUS eating a Darwin fish). Well-formed defenses (non-argumentative) can aide in removing some doubt, bt ultimately, Christ must be taken on faith.
But I over-react. Apologetics are, in my opinion, so dominated by quips and slogans that I tend to avoid any association with it. That's not a good stand. That's not the one Saul/Paul took. Acts 9:20 "At once [Saul] began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21 All those who heard him were astonished and asked, "Isn't he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn't he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?" 22 Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.
What proofs can we offer?
2 comments:
It seems like the greatest proof (and the one Saul/Paul offered) is God's redemptive work in our lives. Unfortunately, much of that cannot be "proven" or tested. Sure there are things that we can point to that line up with Biblical principles. We can prove that Jesus existed, that there was a real exodus from Egypt, that the Bible was written by certain people, etc. But what good are such proofs if they bring us into contact with the God we try to prove? Most people (especially in a post-modern context) care far more about what GOd can do in their lives than proving that the walls of Jericho actually fell down based on some archeological find.
True, a life changed is the best apologetic. And that probably was the big part of Saul's proof. However, I figure he probably cited TaNaK plenty.
Mostly apologetics seem to be a distraction that keeps us from addressing the real issues people have.
Post a Comment