When Not to Discuss/Converse/Debate

[Debbie]

R. C. Sproul states that a large task of the Christian Apologist is "to prove the Christian worldview, and to rely on God to cause the acquiescence of the unbelieving heart to the soundness of biblical doctrine."

But at what point, if any, is the Christian Apologist wiser to "shake the dust from one's feet" and move on?

[Lee]

Well, when you are no longer under attack, there is no longer any need to defend.

[David]

Well, Sproul's view is that God only "causes" such "acquiescence" in the heart of a select view whom God preordained...but that is neither here nor there.

I figure if God loves humanity enough to take on flesh, suffer horrific, torturous death and then return from the dead to demonstrate such love...there is not much that ought to stop us at loving others.

Of course, I guess it depends on the "Christian Apologist" herself. How much listening is going on? Is she treating the other person like a person or like an object to fix or a project to improve? Does he truly care for the other person as more than just a target? Or is he a used car salesman trying to close the deal?

[Debbie]

Thanks, David.

I think Sproul was just noting the role of the Holy Spirit in the conversion process, and that only the Holy Spirit has such a role – and never the Apologist.

That aside, I agree with you that Christ gave His all; He died for the whole world, and I agree that His followers should give their all when it comes to loving others.

Yet when the love of Christ is mentioned, does every word that comes from the mouth of Christ get equal part? I mean, it was Christ Himself Who said “Shake the dust off your feet…” (Matthew 10:14).

That aside, too, I do think it wise to get objective views on some of my thoughts, actions, etc., especially when I consider myself lacking in patience at times.

The bigger picture asked whether I listened well enough. It asked if I treated the other person like a person.

Or did I simply act on a gut feeling that said no matter how much I have or will have listened, I will always remain the target of the used car salesman…so why bother even discussing anything?

I think this is a very relevant “Apologetics” question to sort out…

[Rod]

I like to look at what the characters of the Bible did:

Noah's ministry? Was there any?
Moses standing up for God?
Elijah battling false religions?
Jonah warning a city of its possible peril?
Did Jesus challenge and threaten people with the truth?
Were the New Testament apologists ever put in prison? Why?
How did Paul and John end up just sharing LOVE? They made alot of people angry. Maybe they actually shared Biblical truth to those who didn't want it.


Love is nice - but it doesn't save anyone. Love without the nasty truth is just comfort...then death...then judgement. (although many here probably don't accept that humanity will be judged - they prefer their Bible blot out those parts.)

[Debbie]

There really are such a great cloud of witnesses! Thanks, Rod. Putting my armor on.

[Lee]

Are you going to battle, Debbie?

I get the feeling I'm missing the point of this conversation, lol. Are we trying to decide whether or not to go door to door handing out leaflets?

[Peter]

Debbie wrote: "R. C. Sproul states that a large task of the Christian Apologist is "to prove the Christian worldview, and to rely on God to cause the acquiescence of the unbelieving heart to the soundness of bibl..."

An excellent question Debbie. For my part I wrestle with apologetic questions first of all for myself. Aquinas, whenever he presented a position, would argue against it as well as he could. I try to do the same with positions I have taken. So I would engage in apologetics even if no one else were interested.

With respect to others,I try to apply I Peter 3:15. Not everyone finds the kinds of questions apologetics addresses important. For them personal experience and relationship are much more important and so I try to interact at that level.

I have encountered a third kind of person that engages in these kinds of discussions. At first they seem interested in the questions they pose, but they seem disappointed if the query doesn't stymie the responder and rapidly lose interest in the question, and move on to another. I come away from those discussions, thinking they didn't really care about getting the question answered as much as they cared about putting the apologist into difficulty. Those kinds of conversations are ones I would politely walk away from.

[Debbie]

Peter wrote: "Those kinds of conversations are ones I would politely walk away from. "

Thank you for your response, Peter!

[Rod]

Very cool Peter. Thanks.

I learned years ago: Don't answer questions that nobody asks.

That is why I find hitting people with God's truth seems to get them in the game and opinionated. Discussing Jesus' love is almost a pointless mess of mixed religions and cults all selling the same thing. For instance:
It's nice to tell someone Jesus' loves them - but be prepared to explain which Jesus and HOW. Was it the Mormon/J.W./Hindu/Cultic/Catholic Jesus or the Jesus of the Bible... (if anyone wants to argue this statement please don't pretend that you are a Bible believing Christian who trusts God's Word.) :p

I think we will minister to broken hearts and souls, rebels, those wanting truth but terribly afraid to let go of current beliefs, and those who do, and always will, despise the God of the Bible.
Sometimes we are Jonah, sometimes we are David against Goliath, and often Peter/Paul/John. Occasionally we may even be like Jesus - who chose to say NOTHING at times.

But whatever we do we won't fail - I doubt we will get to heaven and have God say, "you didn't preach my truth to (this certain person) and now they are in Hell - have a nice eternity."
Our God is not desperate. But our love should be. I love chatting with my children and especially their friends about Christianity. But when they reject it I understand the struggles and issues they may be facing. And God may not have called them...yet!

[Lee]

Rod wrote: "Was it the Mormon/J.W./Hindu/Cultic/Catholic Jesus or the Jesus of the Bible"

How about the Jesus of history?

[Rod]

I stand by what I said Lee:

(if anyone wants to argue this statement please don't pretend that you are a Bible believing Christian who trusts God's Word.) :p

Your historical Jesus and the one of the Bible are clearly (to me - and many others) not the same thing Lee.

[Lee]

That's my point, Rod. You forgot my Jesus!

[Rod]

NO Lee :D

Your Jesus was endlessly mixed in with the Mormon/J.W./Hindu/Cultic/Catholic/Lee's historical JESUS.

If we have no clear Biblical account of Jesus then we really have a Jesus that doesn't matter.

[Lee]

That's ok, as long as you don't forget me. ;)

[David]

Rod, did you seriously say that discussing the love of Jesus is pointless? I'm not sure exactly how you mean to witness if it's not by spreading the love of Jesus, but knowing your love of offending people I imagine it's a sight to behold. Make sure you yank that log out of your eye before you examine others so critically.

As for the topic, we should not be a stumbling block to others (1 Corinthians 8). It's one thing to have an open discussion with someone to witness but you have to be careful not to insult them. Screaming at people never does anything except cause their heart to harden further.

[Rod]

If you are discussing the love of a Jesus OTHER than the Biblical one - then it is indeed pointless. :D

The liberal Jesus really isn't the historical Messiah that saves the human race from sin. I'm not exactly sure what he does? Just makes everyone NICE I guess. No need for salvation then.

I agree with you that insulting people is a complex scenario. Thankfully Jesus and every other Biblical hero never insulted anyone - "Bahahahahaha!" :p

There is a time to share love & compassion & generosity - and then there's a time to get the TRUTH out clearly with no apologies. I sure don't see enough clear truth in our world. People are so busy attempting not to offend anyone with the Gospel that we have failed to deliver truth at all.
______________________________________________________

1 Corinthians 8 is very interesting. If you throw out verse 6 then nothing really matters.

8:6
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Always error on the safe side when upsetting someone who is attempting to stick to the truth. But if they are against biblical truth - well?! That is a whole nother issue. Read that chapter again David. You seem to be on the side of the Idols and their temples.

Sometimes causing someone's heart to harden is a good thing. Their true self comes out. Then you can deal with the real problem at hand.

[Lee]

Rod, there really isn't any need to go to battle. Do you not realize that historical Jesus scholars paint a different picture of Jesus than the evangelists of the Bible do? Liberal Christians tend to emphasize this scholarly description of Jesus, the person, rather than the Christ of faith. I know I do.

Nobody is trying to take your Jesus away from you. If you ever get curious about what the "liberal Jesus does," I'd be happy to discuss it with you, but I know you're not interested.

[Rod]

The fact that you don't think there's a battle on means you really don't get the Bible or the Jesus it clearly represents.

Lee quote:
"Nobody is trying to take your Jesus away from you."

You have done nothing BUT that since the day I met you.

Lee quote:
"Do you not realize that historical Jesus scholars paint a different picture of Jesus than the evangelists of the Bible do?"

We have a Bible we can all read - I don't care what conclusions scholars come to anymore. We can all investigate and cross reference for ourselves (hopefully with the help of the Holy Spirit.)

All I know is that the liberal Jesus is not the Jesus of the complete Bible. Therefore he's useless.

I'm always happy to discuss things with you Lee. You do inspire me to dig deeper into scripture. :D

[Robert]

Wow, we evangelists, proselytizers and witnesses take ourselves seriously. I guess I would ask: "Who does the calling? as in "Many are called, but few are chosen?" Doesn't a fire need to be lit by the Spirit for any of the Lord's followers to make headway in conversion? Isn't it pretty egocentric to think we're the initiators of that fire? Certainly it can't hurt to talk about the Scriptures, but to expect lost sheep to come to the Lord before He stands ready to receive them or they have played out their secular hand is folly. I believe our main function is as seed planters of which there will probably be many to those astray, most of which will fall on hard ground or among thorns. I write this as a missionary with a low batting average for saved souls who considers this the norm and high success an indication of high pressure tactics where the target tells the zealot what he wants to hear ("I believe!!!") to get rid of him.

[Rod]

I'm not sure who you were talking to Robert. Are you saying NOT to take ourselves and this battle for truth seriously?

The problem Robert is whether we should ever BOTHER to defend the truth of scripture at all then. Do we attempt to slow down liberalism as it destroys Biblical Christianity. Or just sit back and let everything fall in a chaotic fashion?

Should David never have killed Goliath? Should Elijah never have taken on the prophets of Baal? Did God kill Ananias & Sapphira?

Should William Tyndale not have died while standing for his version of Truth and Scripture?

[Robert]

Rod, well I must confess to a tangent away from apologetics here. All the people you mention are God's emissaries, with a specific calling, doing as they must to stay faithful. I'm wondering out loud about evangelism (not defending the faith) and whether we "Play God" in trying to make ourselves the bearer of "The Call" rather than just a humble purveyor of God's Word.