Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Lobby - Introductions
>
Why are you interested in Christian Apologetics?
I guess most people aren't interested in Apologetics. Too bad!
I love Christian apologetics because even though it's completely unnecessary to defend Christianity (its a matter of faith which makes providing evidence or defense redundant), I find it interesting how great thinkers have rationalized eternal truths. My favorite Christian Philosopher/theologian is Thomas Aquinas. He tackled almost every complex Biblical concept and explained it as far as human reason could reach.
Tasha wrote: "I love Christian apologetics because even though it's completely unnecessary to defend Christianity (its a matter of faith which makes providing evidence or defense redundant)..."I agree, that's why I rarely ever do it.
Tasha, thank you for your point about how faith is a personal and internal process. on the contrary, apologetics is a necessary intellectual of the Christians, 1Peter 3:15 is often cited as a proof text for apologetics being a necessary part of the Christian life. Further theologians like Thomas Aquinas saw that reason and faith do not conflict and in some matters like the existence of God they overlap.
David wrote: "on the contrary, apologetics is a necessary intellectual of the Christians, 1Peter 3:15..."Defending the faith is one thing; confusing it as a means of proselytizing is something else entirely. Unfortunately, they are often confused. Genuine conversion only happens after someone has a Spiritual encounter with Christ. If their faith is only intellectual, it isn't faith at all; and isn't genuine Christianity, in my opinion. Intellectual arguments (i.e. reason) cannot ever be the end in itself. Room must be given over to the Spirit to do His work; and all of that must transcend human reason. That is why I never conflate apologetics with Spiritual witness. That is also why there are many cases where apologetics is lost on a particular audience because they are too hard hearted to listen to the Spirit. I have encountered that quite a bit on these boards. At a certain point you learn to choose your battles. The truest defense of Christianity can really only be had on the Spiritual level, not on the purely rational. I think this is Tasha's point and it is certainly mine.
I somewhat agree Erick.The challenge is that all religions (and atheism) are desperate for the loyalty of our children, family and friends. Many people do not offer anything more than other religions offer - they all claim logic, love and purpose.
It's not that we must win! - but our hope must be more solid, honest and loving... Or even I will join something better.
Rod wrote: "Or even I will join something better."Haha. I think you know as well as I do that what Christ gives no one else has. ;-)
Eric, your point well taken. I certainly agree that rationality is not an end in of itself and we should not conflate faith and rationality. You sound like you have a lot of experience in these matters and you're using that as he foundation of your claim, but what Biblical basis can you make your claim on? (You may have done so earlier in the discussion.)
David wrote: "but what Biblical basis can you make your claim on? (You may have done so earlier in the discussion.) "Romans 8:9b
"...Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."
1 Corinthians 1:17-31
"For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power. For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.
Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, in order that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 2:1-16
"When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.
Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written,
“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the human heart conceived,
what God has prepared for those who love him”—
these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what human being knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual.
Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny.
“For who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”
But we have the mind of Christ."
2 Corinthians 4:3-4, 13
"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God...
But just as we have the same spirit of faith that is in accordance with scripture—“I believed, and so I spoke”—we also believe, and so we speak..."
David wrote: "You sound like you have a lot of experience in these matters and you're using that as he foundation of your claim"Yes, I do have personal experience in this because I am very rational by nature. Before becoming a Christian, I had many rational reasons not to become a Christian. When I was given a revelation of Christ, it trumped all those reasons I had for rejecting Christ and Christianity. I also can base that experience, and my interpretation of it, on scripture as well. There will always be things in the Bible that cannot be proven and substantiated empirically. That's what makes those things a matter of faith. To even try to prove those things, I believe, is to demean the faith.
Erick, your claim was that you give a spiritual defense of the faith rather then a "purely rational" one since you want to give room to the spirit to work in people's heart. But all your passages point out that it is the Spirit of God who works in people's heart, not man. We don't play an authoritative part in people coming to salvation. To argue that if we don't give room for the Spirit of God to work then he won't is a failure to recognize that the Spirit of God works through all circumstances to bring His people to Himself. Thank you for sharing how you came to faith. I hope what I say next is helpful. I don't mean to come across as harsh or cynical. Your claim of personal revelation of Christ trumping all rationality is not a strong method of discovering truth. Our judgments are often faulty and misguided. For instance Muhammad came to his conclusions about God and the world through personal revelations, what about your revelation "trumps" his? We can flip this objection and say that people have used reason to "disprove" God's existence, but that case is much harder to make. The reason is, rationality provides a grounds for people to work through disagreements and reach conclusions while personal revelation on the other hand does not provide such grounds.
Of course, I don't mean to say we can't know what is revealed by faith. What I am saying, though, is that the foundation of one's faith can't be a personal revelation since such judgments are faulty.
I agree there will be things in the Bible we can't prove, but it seems a bit too far to say that to prove things is to demean faith. Could you explain more what you mean by that?
David wrote: " But all your passages point out that it is the Spirit of God who works in people's heart, not man. We don't play an authoritative part in people coming to salvation. "That was my point, David.
David wrote: "To argue that if we don't give room for the Spirit of God to work then he won't is a failure to recognize that the Spirit of God works through all circumstances to bring His people to Himself. "
The idea that the Spirit forces His way into all of one's interactions, regardless of the state of one's heart, is quite erroneous.
David wrote: "Your claim of personal revelation of Christ trumping all rationality is not a strong method of discovering truth. Our judgments are often faulty and misguided. "
And fallen human reason is better I presume? In almost every point you are contradicting Paul's very points, e.g.
"My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God."
"But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory."
"...these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God."
" Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual."
"Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
David wrote: "Of course, I don't mean to say we can't know what is revealed by faith. What I am saying, though, is that the foundation of one's faith can't be a personal revelation since such judgments are faulty."
I addressed this above but I will add that you need to pay extra special attention to 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 and 2 Corinthian 4:3-4 because you are really not grasping what is being said. I am not condemning you, I am only stating what you are indicating.
David wrote: "I agree there will be things in the Bible we can't prove, but it seems a bit too far to say that to prove things is to demean faith. Could you explain more what you mean by that? "
No, I can't. But I will say I appreciate irony as much as anyone. That might be the only thing such a demonstration would constitute as it stands.
I probably won't continue restating what I have already said, but I will add another passage that illustrates my point:John 3:1-13
"Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.” Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?
“Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."
What does Nicodemus know? That Jesus is from God. Why does he fail to understand what Jesus is saying? and what is His issue according to Jesus? That his knowledge and wisdom is fleshly and earthly, not Spiritual. What is the remedy? To be born of Spirit.
And so, many Christians battle worldly wisdom with worldly wisdom. They proclaim Christ, but know Him only according to human standards, not Spiritual standards.
Erick, glad we are in common ground. It seems the core of our disagreement is about how the Spirit of God works. I claim the "Spirit of God works through all circumstances to bring His people to Himself."You disagree saying that this means the Spirit "forces his way into one's interactions." This is a straw man argument since it is not what I claimed or argued.
I am saying that God works in us to do his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13). Further, the Spirit of God intervenes in time quite a bit in scripture. See Mary and how the Spirit of God intervened in her life (luke 1:35). Lastly, Paul is very clear about how God has chosen us to be his people, (Eph 1:3-5). I don't mean to say we don't have "free will," but to say it is God who works in us to do his good pleasure.
You are referring to "fallen human reason." The texts you cite often say "human wisdom." We haven't taken the time to explain what we mean by it. I have intended the broadest meaning of reason that includes the fundamental laws of logic (Law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle and law of identity) as well as concepts like validity and soundness being important to an argument's success. Surely you are not referring to these as "fallen human reason" or "human wisdom" since you are using these concepts yourself in this discussion. So, could you clarify what is "fallen human reason?"
Also, what Paul is arguing for is that knowledge of Jesus Christ being Savior of the world is known by the Spirit of God, not man's working towards God. This does not mean apologetics isn't necessary in the Christian life, it means that it does not give man salvation. No matter how much intellectual knowledge we have, it won't save us. I believe we are agreement on this point.
As for the Cor 2:1-16, 2 Cor. 4:3-4 passages, you are not the Apostle Paul nor, as far as you head, do you have the role of an Apostle. I think my previous point still stands. Again, I hope my words not cutting or harsh. I only hope to be helpful.
John 3:1-13 is not a discussion of worldly wisdom v. the spirit. It is a discussion of, does Jesus fit the requirements that he is the Messiah. Nicodemus can't see it because the spirit of God hasn't revealed it to him. He is not coming from a position of worldly wisdom, but of the old law and the sacramental system.
Lastly, I think we agree on a lot: that it is the spirit of God who works to bring salvation, that we are to preach the gospel to people in their context. But I think the core of our disagreement is found in how the Spirit works and the place of apologetics in the Christian life. Hope you found the conversation helpful and fruitful. I certainly enjoyed hearing your perspective, and it has made me to think more carefully about the role of the Spirit of God.
David wrote: "You disagree saying that this means the Spirit "forces his way into one's interactions." This is a straw man argument since it is not what I claimed or argued. "Now lets back up because you are now cherry picking points which is itself a logical fallacy. You said:
"To argue that if we don't give room for the Spirit of God to work then he won't is a failure to recognize that the Spirit of God works through all circumstances to bring His people to Himself."
You contradicted my point about giving the Spirit room to work, as if we didn't need to. If my point wasn't wrong, why did you contradict it? If it was wrong, than we must assume the Spirit doesn't need to be given room by us, i.e. our heart doesn't need to be right and freewill is futile. It's one or the other, David. That's simple logic. If I was right to start with and we have freewill that can reject what the Spirit wants to do, than I was correct and you contradicted me wrongly.
David wrote: "You are referring to "fallen human reason." The texts you cite often say "human wisdom." We haven't taken the time to explain what we mean by it. I have intended the broadest meaning of reason that includes the fundamental laws of logic (Law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle and law of identity) as well as concepts like validity and soundness being important to an argument's success. Surely you are not referring to these as "fallen human reason" or "human wisdom" since you are using these concepts yourself in this discussion. So, could you clarify what is "fallen human reason?" "
I am also not trying to convert you either. I am attempting to get you to recognize the more prominent role the Spirit plays in these things and you keep contradicting me. So my logic is not helping you see it's role. Why is that? Fallen human reason is anything that puts more stock in human rationality than in God's Spirit.
David wrote: "Also, what Paul is arguing for is that knowledge of Jesus Christ being Savior of the world is known by the Spirit of God, not man's working towards God. This does not mean apologetics isn't necessary in the Christian life, it means that it does not give man salvation. No matter how much intellectual knowledge we have, it won't save us. I believe we are agreement on this point. "
Apologetics by itself is nothing. That is my point. If it doesn't come from the Holy Spirit, it is simply human reason. You asked for scripture to back up my point and I gave it. That didn't satisfy you. You are now inserting ideas that are not in the passages I cited to justify using human reason, I think. He doesn't use the word "works" or "working" anywhere. He uses the word Spirit at least ten times in the passages I quote, to show the the prominent role of the Spirit and the futility of human reason by itself. He also uses the words demonstration and power. Here, the difference between wisdom and reason is semantic. What is the focus is the futility of human rationality without the Spirit. I find the whole discussion ironic because I am left trying to explain something that the very passage that I am citing says has to be revealed by the Spirit. You refuse to see it. I think that is rather telling.
David wrote: "As for the Cor 2:1-16, 2 Cor. 4:3-4 passages, you are not the Apostle Paul nor, as far as you head, do you have the role of an Apostle. I think my previous point still stands. Again, I hope my words not cutting or harsh. I only hope to be helpful."
Thank you, David. I never claimed be the apostle Paul. What I said is you fail to grasp what Paul is saying. And I stand by the idea that you don't grasp Paul's points. It is really because they are in stark contrast to what you believe. A little cognitive dissonance I think.
David wrote: "Lastly, I think we agree on a lot: that it is the spirit of God who works to bring salvation, that we are to preach the gospel to people in their context. But I think the core of our disagreement is found in how the Spirit works and the place of apologetics in the Christian life."
Well, the problem is that I put the Holy Spirit first and you put human reason first. I don't think that's a trifle.
David wrote: "John 3:1-13 is not a discussion of worldly wisdom v. the spirit. It is a discussion of, does Jesus fit the requirements that he is the Messiah. Nicodemus can't see it because the spirit of God hasn't revealed it to him. He is not coming from a position of worldly wisdom, but of the old law and the sacramental system. "Haha. You must forgive me for finding this somewhat humorous because once again with John, you are inserting ideas that are not found in the passage, and ignoring ones that are. So where is the word "messiah" here? How about anything about the law? Or the old convenant? Nicodemus does believe in Jesus (verse 2), but he does not understand what Jesus is saying about being born again. This prompts Jesus to criticize his so-called understanding (verse 10). No where does it say that Nicodemus rejects or cannot accept Jesus' claim to be the Messiah? So you are not reading the passage as it is. You are inserting and ignoring things that make it more palatable for you and will allow you to insist that you are right in this debate, even at the cost of misusing passages of scripture.
Erick, thank you for the response. First, your response to my identifying your fallacy was the claim that I also committed a fallacy of cherry picking. Perhaps I did, but that is not relevant since your point is still fallacious.
Second, you said "You contradicted my point about giving the Spirit room to work, as if we didn't need to. If my point wasn't wrong, why did you contradict it? If it was wrong, than we must assume the Spirit doesn't need to be given room by us, i.e. our heart doesn't need to be right and freewill is futile. It's one or the other, David. That's simple logic. If I was right to start with and we have freewill that can reject what the Spirit wants to do, than I was correct and you contradicted me wrongly." There are a couple points here:
1. To say I was implying we don't need to give room to Spirit is inaccurate. I'm sorry that I came across that way. I agree, we ought to be lead by the Spirit in witnessing to people. My point is simply that apologetics is a necessary part of the Christian life. Of course it ought not get in the way of witnessing to others or create a foundation for pride or any sin.
2. Your claim if wrong doesn't necessarily mean "that the Spirit works regardless of circumstances and we have no free will." It is not one or the other, that is bifurcation, another fallacy.
3. To say that man can reject God is unBiblical. I have already given scripture as my citation. This could drag us into a discussion of "free will v. predestination." This thread is not the topic for that discussion, so I'm willing to leave it at that.
Second, you said "I am attempting to get you to recognize the more prominent role the Spirit plays in these things and you keep contradicting me. So my logic is not helping you see it's role. Why is that? Fallen human reason is anything that puts more stock in human rationality than in God's Spirit."
I would go further, it is the Spirit of God who saves, man on his own cannot save himself. I find your definition of human reason as putting more stock in human rationality then in God's spirit to be circular. The reason why, you use the very term which is to be defined in your definition.
Third you said "Apologetics by itself is nothing." Your meaning, I think is that if one does apologetics without the work of the spirit is is simply human reason. I agree. We ought to do apologetics that way. But that doesn't contradict my claim, apologetics is necessary in the Christian life.
Lastly, some thoughts: whether "I refuse to see it" or this is all just irony remains to be seen. I think of myself trying to understand what you're saying, hence I ask questions and try to clarify what our disagreement is about. Further, I hope that it hasn't come across that I am not a Christian. I am a believer, saved by Jesus Christ. I just struggle with claims that place reason outside the Christian life while the term is not defined, or defined poorly and the one making the claim uses reason to make the claim. That's a contradictory argument. If I'm missing the point, can you provide examples of individuals who have or are doing what you're claim. Avoid point me out since that wouldn't be the most helpful since I don't think I am. lol
Hope this is a good discussion from your perspective as it is to me.
David wrote: "First, your response to my identifying your fallacy was the claim that I also committed a fallacy of cherry picking. Perhaps I did, but that is not relevant since your point is still fallacious. "No, it really wasn't. My point was valid and wasn't shown to be properly fallacious.
David wrote: "1. To say I was implying we don't need to give room to Spirit is inaccurate. I'm sorry that I came across that way. I agree, we ought to be lead by the Spirit in witnessing to people. My point is simply that apologetics is a necessary part of the Christian life. Of course it ought not get in the way of witnessing to others or create a foundation for pride or any sin. "
But you also say:
David wrote: "I just struggle with claims that place reason outside the Christian life while the term is not defined, or defined poorly and the one making the claim uses reason to make the claim. That's a contradictory argument. "
So if you believe that it can get in the way, than you are answering your own issue. Yes, reason can stand in the way. As your above quote presumes. So you seem to already know that it can be outside the realm of God's Spirit.
David wrote: "2. Your claim if wrong doesn't necessarily mean "that the Spirit works regardless of circumstances and we have no free will." It is not one or the other, that is bifurcation, another fallacy. "
Not in this context it isn't. The way it was worded is one or the other. But you are now back peddling a bit. To make the claim that this is a false dichotomy is fallacious. Since you believe we "can't reject God", this topic is rather pointless.
David wrote: "I would go further, it is the Spirit of God who saves, man on his own cannot save himself. I find your definition of human reason as putting more stock in human rationality then in God's spirit to be circular. The reason why, you use the very term which is to be defined in your definition."
You keep using the word "saved". Why is that? My point is about relational attributes of the Holy Spirit and you keep using the word "saved". Do you think this ties into some heavenly kingdom in the future? My point is about our current relationship right now. I think you are playing more games. My logic isn't circular. Prove that it is because I see no evidence of it.
David wrote: "But that doesn't contradict my claim, apologetics is necessary in the Christian life."
I think what is evident is how much stock you put in human reasoning and the assumption that God will use it no matter what.
Quick response, "Yes, reason can stand in the way. As your above quote presumes. So you seem to already know that it can be outside the realm of God's Spirit." But it really depends on what you mean by "reason." So, what do you mean by reason? As for the claim about bifurcation. You say there is only two options. That is a clear example of bifurcation, which is also known as fallacy of false dilemmas. Either A or B while ignoring a third possibility. You're wrong and the Spirit works through us to do his good pleasure, and we do have "free will." Sure, it's quite the contentious point, but it's possibility and various Christians thinkers have held it. (Anselm is one who comes to mind.)
Regarding the term "saved." I use it to refer to the doctrine of justification where God works to transform man from the natural man to the spiritual man through his Spirit. Perhaps here is where our disagreement lies, a confusion. What you mean by the "relational attributes of the Holy Spirit" I don't know. Perhaps the Christians knowledge of Christ stems from the Spirit? If so, that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about defending the faith and whether rationality has a place in it.
Lastly, you're assuming that I follow "human reasoning and the assumption that God will use it no matter what." That's quite the claim to make. It would be better for you to ask, what I mean by that statement. Looking forward to your thoughts.
David wrote: " So, what do you mean by reason? "I believe I already addressed this.
David wrote: "As for the claim about bifurcation. You say there is only two options. That is a clear example of bifurcation, which is also known as fallacy of false dilemmas. Either A or B while ignoring a third possibility. You're wrong and the Spirit works through us to do his good pleasure, and we do have "free will." Sure, it's quite the contentious point, but it's possibility and various Christians thinkers have held it. (Anselm is one who comes to mind.) "
I'm a little tired of this. It would help if you actually quoted me. I said:
"Room must be given over to the Spirit to do His work..."
Pretty simple statement. We either give Him room or we don't. It's as simple as that. There is no other option, David. Just those two. This is not a false dichotomy, and claiming it is, is itself a logical fallacy. This is a fallacy of misrepresentation. Now, prove that there is a third option between giving the Spirit room and not. You must do this to contend that it is a false dichotomy. Please prove your contention because I think that you claiming it is, is a fallacy of misrepresentation.
David wrote: "If so, that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about defending the faith and whether rationality has a place in it. "
I can't really believe that you are claiming this. The point is that everything that a Christian does, especially regarding the faith itself, must be done with due consideration of the role the Holy Spirit plays. Nothing is outside of that scope, especially not defending the faith. That's exactly why definitions are irrelevant as well. This is a discussion about prioritization. Spirit first. That is the point. You can define reason however you like, if it is outside the work of the Holy Spirit, it is man's fallen reason.
David wrote: "Lastly, you're assuming that I follow "human reasoning and the assumption that God will use it no matter what." That's quite the claim to make. It would be better for you to ask, what I mean by that statement. Looking forward to your thoughts. "
You did say this: "To say that man can reject God is unBiblical", didn't you? You did intend it the way it is stated, did you not? It seems to presume that man has no ability to prevent God from using man's reason, regardless of how it is used. If predestination is the presumption, then you must believe that everything is the will of God, including all your thoughts and actions.
Thank you for your comments Erick, "Pretty simple statement. We either give Him room or we don't. It's as simple as that... Now, prove that there is a third option between giving the Spirit room and not." I said "You're wrong and the Spirit works through us to do his good pleasure, and we do have 'free will.'" this is the third option.
You say "This is a discussion about prioritization. Spirit first." I contend that apologetics is a necessary part of the Christian life. These don't appear to be contradictory. Can we agree to that?
You're saying definitions are irrelevant because "everything a Christian does... must be done with due consideration of the role of the Holy Spirit plays. Nothing is outside of that scope, especially not defending the faith." Either I am misunderstanding you or you are speaking nonsense. Could you clarify?
You think my statements as I stated them logically entail that God is in control of everything. I'm ok with that. Yes, God is sovereign. You say, "It seems to presume that man has no ability to prevent God from using man's reason, regardless of how it is used." Yes, man can't stop God from using whatever method God desires. Does this entail man is not free? No, theologians have argued man is free and God is sovereign. Anselm and Thomas Aquinas are two such theologians.
Lastly, I hope you can see that I'm not trying to disagree with you or playing games. Hopefully we can reach some sort of agreement.
David wrote: " I said "You're wrong and the Spirit works through us to do his good pleasure, and we do have 'free will.'" this is the third option. "Are you really being serious here? This isn't a third option, David. This really is pure nonsense, I think. If we have freewill and the Holy Spirit "works through us to do His good pleasure" than we must allow Him, right? If we don't allow Him, than He must force His will on us according to you. That was the point I made initially that you attempted (and have failed thus far) to refute me on. You are playing games because you have not presented a third option. This is a game of words. I follow this up below.
David wrote: "I contend that apologetics is a necessary part of the Christian life. These don't appear to be contradictory. Can we agree to that? "
You want me to say that it plays some role in and by itself. This whole conflict is about that and I will not put reason and apologetics first.
David wrote: " Either I am misunderstanding you or you are speaking nonsense. Could you clarify?"
You are misunderstanding because you choose to. How about I quote you from above again:
"My point is simply that apologetics is a necessary part of the Christian life. Of course it ought not get in the way of witnessing to others or create a foundation for pride or any sin. "
You know that apologetics can be outside Spiritual witness because how could it ever get in the way and be a source of pride and sin? Tell me David, how? If apologetics is always good and the Spirit can use whatever He likes, regardless of your intention, how could apologetics get in the way and ever be a source of pride and sin? Let's not obfuscate like you are doing with the so-called third option; just give me a straight answer.
David wrote: "You think my statements as I stated them logically entail that God is in control of everything. I'm ok with that. Yes, God is sovereign... Yes, man can't stop God from using whatever method God desires. Does this entail man is not free? No, theologians have argued man is free and God is sovereign. Anselm and Thomas Aquinas are two such theologians. "
See, you are showing the nullity of your initial criticism and refutation. You attempted to refute me when I asserted that God doesn't force His will in response to your post, now you are saying He does, but we still have freewill. This is utter contradiction. The names of Anselm and Aquinas are just red herrings here. You must believe that sometimes God does force His will, so my point above (i.e. "The idea that the Spirit forces His way into all of one's interactions, regardless of the state of one's heart, is quite erroneous") still stands. You do believe that He can and does force His will, regardless of the state of our heart. So you criticized the point uselessly. You have failed to show a logical third option. What you believe is that God does force His will. When and if this does occur, we cannot have freewill in that case. If this occurs at all, than freewill is nullified. So how does this figure into another quote of yours: "I have intended the broadest meaning of reason that includes the fundamental laws of logic (Law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle and law of identity) as well as concepts like validity and soundness being important to an argument's success"? Your belief that God uses whatever method He desires, must include forcing His will, regardless of our own. That can only be what you mean when you say "man can't stop God from using whatever method God desires", because that is the context you are using it in. Still believing in freewill is a contradiction. That is a breaking of your own professed rule of non-contradiction. Those two ideas cannot be reconciled. Indeed, this whole discussion as an attempt to refute me is proven to be idle because my initial statement excludes a middle and your attempt to prove a middle is an absolute contradiction.
Erick, Let's bring two strands of our discussion together. I said, "You're wrong and the Spirit works through us to do his good pleasure, and we do have 'free will.'" this is the third option." You believe this is pure nonsense because it seems to entail that the Spirit of God must override or "force" us without regard for our free will.
I said, on the contrary, there are theologians who argue this point, see Anselm and Thomas Aquinas. You think these are red herrings. Let's not be hasty. Go read De Concordia by Anselm, here is the link http://jasper-hopkins.info/DeConcordi... It's not extremely long to read, but it will most likely take some time to think through his argument. In regards to Thomas Aquinas, go read the Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q 23, 83 and 105 to see his arguments there. I think he also gives arguments in Summa Contra Gentiles but I haven't read that.
I don't mean to burden you with lots of reading but only to show that this third option is not "nonsense" as you contend. Theologians make arguments for this position. If you don't think their arguments work, that would be a discussion to be had on another thread. It's way off topic on this thread.
Let's bring two other strands together, you say you won't place reason and apologetics first and that I want you to say it plays "plays some role in and by itself" . Also, you think that apologetics can lead to pride. Consequently, you don't think apologetics is a necessary part of the Christian life. In regards to the first point, I'm ok with apologetics and reason not being first. I'm not saying that reason and apologetics is first, I simply am trying to say apologetics is a necessary part of the Christian life, not sufficient or number 1.
Second, I don't where you got the idea that I want you to say that apologetics plays some role in and by itself. I'm sorry that I came across that way. That was not my intention. I simply wish to find agreement that apologetics is a necessary part of the Christian life. Christians ought to defend their faith. What's wrong with that? Sure, make room for the Spirit, it is the spirit of God who works in man's heart to turn them to Himself and if fits your boat, add that man can reject the Spirit. Can't we agree that apologetics is a necessary part of the Christian life now that we see it doesn't contradict your point about the Spirit?
Third, I agree apologetics can lead to sin, but leading the church can lead to sin, having talent can lead to sin. Just because something can lead to sin, it doesn't entail it is wrong or bad. So, don't deny the claim that apologetics is a necessary part of the Christian life simply because it leads to sin. Lot's of very good things can lead to sin. For example, King Saul. He was given a great calling, to be king of Israel but it lead him to pride and his eventual death.
Lastly, a lot of our discussion has been dealing with the role of the Spirit. Paul speaks in Galatians that a fruit of the spirit is peace and gentleness. These can be lost in discussions such as ours. I have tried to be write that way in communicating to you. I hope and pray it comes across that way.
David wrote: "Erick, Let's bring two strands of our discussion together. I said, "You're wrong and the Spirit works through us to do his good pleasure, and we do have 'free will.'" this is the third option."You insist on divorcing one comment from all related comments. This is incredibly aggravating, because it is the logical fallacy of cherry picking. My first quote once again:
"Intellectual arguments (i.e. reason) cannot ever be the end in itself. Room must be given over to the Spirit to do His work; and all of that must transcend human reason.""
Your next quote could only have been meant as refutation:
David wrote: "To argue that if we don't give room for the Spirit of God to work then he won't is a failure to recognize that the Spirit of God works through all circumstances to bring His people to Himself."
My next quote in response:
Erick wrote: "The idea that the Spirit forces His way into all of one's interactions, regardless of the state of one's heart, is quite erroneous."
That is the entire relevant correspondence without cherry picking quotes. My first quote entailed that a Christian must allow God room, and it necessitates freewill and a certain disposition. You either allow God room, or you don't. You refuted this and said that "the Spirit of God works through ALL circumstances". You meant to refute the first quote, which has to do with the necessity of us allowing God to work in us. You didn't agree that we must allow God to work in us because you attempted to refute it. So my contention that we must allow God to work was wrong according to you. You said: "He works through ALL circumstances" in contrast. So God is NOT dependent on us giving Him room. I followed this up by saying the above. It was fitting given your attempt at refutation, which entailed that God does NOT respect heart disposition or freewill. God working through ALL circumstances according to you, and in the context of refutation, means that He is not dependent on our freewill to work in us. Later on, you contended we CANNOT prevent Him from working His pleasure, vis-a-vis our hearts -keep in mind that all subsequent refutations and responses were in the context of Christian disposition and state of heart; that is the appropriate context (easy to disregard the context when one is only seeking to be right). The statements about God working through all things, and we being unable to reject or prevent Him, were absolute statements, David. We do not have to give Him room, He asserts His authority in our hearts regardless of our disposition and what we will. We cannot prevent and we cannot reject -He works is us regardless through ALL things. You want to assert the Calvinist notion of divine sovereign micromanaging, but still want to claim Arminian freewill at the same time. Strict Calvinists would know the absolute illogic of such an attempt. Saying we still have freewill is absolutely ridiculous given your statements. If God works through all circumstances in us without a proper state of heart, than everything I do is God's will, not my own, get it, David? God wills ALL things -no ifs, ands, or buts. I can will nothing. You are asserting a contradiction; a third option that makes absolutely zero logical sense. Both cannot be accurate logically. You are not only contradicting your first refutation by claiming we still have freewill, you are also contradicting your claim to the logical standard of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle. You are illustrating exactly the issue I have with apologetics and this kind of rhetoric. Just like you are doing here, it is often simply an exercise in word play and obfuscation. You worked yourself into a corner asserting a contradiction and including, NOT excluding, a middle. You have indicated exactly why apologetics is hardly a Spiritual activity in many cases. You had to argue this simply because at all costs you needed to prove yourself right. It meant numerous logical fallacies along the way in that pursuit.
David wrote: "Also, you think that apologetics can lead to pride. "
You said this, David, not me -lol. Now you are attributing your own quotes to me. This is exactly why this kind of discussion is pointless. It isn't Spirit lead and it isn't even lead by logic or consistency. Absolutely no fruit to be found here.
David wrote: "Third, I agree apologetics can lead to sin, but leading the church can lead to sin, having talent can lead to sin."
Well, at least you are attributing this one to yourself.
David wrote: "Paul speaks in Galatians that a fruit of the spirit is peace and gentleness. "
I am done with this discussion, David. That will at least bring peace. You will insist at all costs that you are right. Logic and consistency will not prevent that pursuit. I will give you the last word (can't say that I will be reading it, though). I figure within your frame of reference this means you were right all along, so I will grant you that claim and allow you your prize. Good luck with your apologetics in the future. I wish I could say you helped me see it's necessity. The truth is that your attempt proved quite the opposite to me.
Eric, I'm sorry this discussion hasn't been profitable to you. I have shown throughout this discussion that I am try to agree where possible while holding to my original claim that apologetics is necessary. This is a Biblical claim, see 1 Peter. (I said this at the very beginning.) I'm sorry that you don't see the third option to be live. I offered a couple well respected thinkers on the topic. I hope you go read those works and work through their arguments before making that conclusion.
You claim this discussion "isn't Spirit lead and it isn't even lead by logic or consistency. Absolutely no fruit to be found here." I'm sorry that you don't feel that way. I have been praying for our discussion and have been trying to get to a point of agreement as much as possible.
Lastly, I do tend to emphasize rationality and logic over the Spirit leadings. Part of this is my upbringing so thank you for helping think through the role of the Spirit in apologetics. I'm sorry that this discussion was not as profitable for you.
Apparently nobody here has been interested in Christian apologetics since March 30 LAST YEAR. Let's try again.
You can't do Christian Apologetics without very clear Biblical theology...and you can't do theology without scriptural apologetics.
Of course: anyone who wants to reduce Christianity to just a good idea or system (like Buddhism) will have Zero impact on atheists --- other than selling a very blind faith (may as well be the monkey gods of Hinduism stealing other deities wives).
Christianity is history, science, geography, logic, philosophy, origins, cultures, purpose, God Given Truth.
...and Love, Justice, Holiness.Ravi Zacharias recently said:
"Christianity is the only source (religion, belief system) with
1) Origins.
2) Purpose.
3) Morality.
4) Destination.
Now that is fun to argue about.
I believe all world views have to and do answer the questions of origin, purpose, morality and destiny. What is required is that the questions are answered with empirical adequacy, relevance and logical consistency.Ravi Zacharias also talks about three levels of philosophy: theory, arts and culture, and the kitchen table philosophy. It seems to me that opinions and statements may seem reasonable at the last two levels, but may be inadequate at the level of theory.
From my limited research: Most religions and worldviews very poorly poke at (or dismiss) Origins, Purpose, Morality and Destination. They often have a poetic run at 2 or 3 but NEVER all 4. Like the Bible does.
I just recently heard Ravi chat about the three levels of Philosophy. I'm still shuffling through it.
Argue from level 1 (theory)Illustrate from level 2 (arts and culture)
Apply at level 3 (kitchen table)
Ah YES! That is it. Well quoted.Reasonable is a very strange word. Like when atheists tell me how horribly EMPATHETIC I am...as they walk to support their local abortion clinic.
Similar to Atheistic college professors who insist nobody lie or cheat on the tests - while teaching lessons about adjustable morality based on subjective cultures and preferences.
At this stage: I must assume Reasonable is the equivalent of Spiritually Blind. It is a tricky game we play.
If we seek truth, we must be willing to push questions and answers to their logical conclusion. Your example is excellent. There needs to be consistency between the requirement of not cheating and your stand on whether morality is objective or not.I consider moral relativism an answer to the question of morality, but the answer fails the test of consistency.
To Me: consistency and Endgame are essential. Any view that breaks these rules is in need of severe criticism and Deletion.
As for Apologetics:I just heard R.C. Sproul state, "If we properly defend the existence of God and the absolute trustworthy historical reliability of the Bible - everything else will fit into those arguments."
(i'm paraphrasing... no photographic memory to rely on here.)
The reason for my interest? I Peter 3:15: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."
Tradition Out Of scripture is useful. But salvation comes FROM the Word of God - with the workings of the Spirit.Tradition is an abused term.
David wrote: "OK Rod - so you have no idea. This is a big part of the problem. Discussing apologetics is almost impossible w/o understanding the basic tenets of our Christian beliefs. Tradition is "Everything th..."Thank you for this comment and the definition of (Catholic) Tradition. For a fruitful discussion it is important to agree on terms and definitions first. Otherwise we don't talk to each other, but past each other.
I don't think you are in a wrong thread. Apologetics is defending what you believe and if I understand you correctly, you believe what is taught by Tradition as per your definition.
Kinda RUDE there David. (which I find very entertaining)"OK Rod - so you have no idea. This is a big part of the problem. Discussing apologetics is almost impossible w/o understanding the basic tenets of our Christian beliefs."
Notice how I separated CATHOLIC TRADITION from simple Christian tradition? Nope, I didn't think you caught that. Now who has NO IDEA? Just poking you in the ribs there buddy.
David's scholarly defense of...stuff.
" It's the superset of what was known AT THE TIME of Christ, BY the experts themselves. And there was quite a bit... Initially. We know this from the targums, Josephus, Didache (written in 37 AD), etc. After many years however, it has all since been written down."
Lots of assumptions and wishes in there buddy. Are you trusting Josephus as a honest religious TRUTH source? You should know better than that. And Didache is fascinating, but reliable? And Targums? Not sure where you're going with that.
But for discussing Apologetics? This is a fun place to do it. But it appears you may have a bit of an EGO about Religious education and how few people can keep up with your VAST intellect. Yes, you do come across that way. Good place to start - bad place to finish. But we can work on that. (i'm not perfect either - I just take more of a street level approach...YES, after 3 years of Bible College and a decade studying World Religions and Theology.)
Thankfully, there's a chance the odd Catholic can be saved. Am I still ANATHEMA? The Pope doesn't seem to know anymore. Hopefully you can help Peter Kreeft save a sinking ship.
Sorry David, but there were no questions in post 151. Ask 1 all mighty question. And I will answer it to MY liking.
That is a huge and beautiful question. Thanks for asking. WE do not endlessly create Religious traditions. But like I said before "Tradition comes OUT OF scripture." Or, on the other end, tradition was placed into scripture by the Holy Spirit. Scripture covers everything - except perhaps somethings we are not meant to understand about the Trinity and the Spiritual realm.
Sure we are free as Saints to make some nice traditions. But they are not Gospel absolutes. Even though some think:
Matthew 18
18"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. 19"Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.…
That verse is a lot more interesting than some think. We can get into that. I might even learn something. In the meantime I'll check some more commentaries on that verse (and no, It's not a magic spell like some charismatics think. And I don't see it as a Catholic authority either.) But it has a purpose.
But tradition can be many things. Baptism is a tradition (and yet much more.) So is the Sabbath. Some things Were traditions --- but i'm not a Jew or an Israelite, so they really don't apply to me.
Jesus also free'd us from some restrictions and Animal Sacrifices. So Tradition can be somewhat historical also.
Honestly for me: I have theology and a relationship with my Savior and God, but almost NO traditions. Unless you call repentance/prayer and Baptism traditions.
My understanding: there is NO authority on this planet at the moment OUTSIDE of scripture. Even the Holy Spirit is working through scripture.
When we NEEDED authority (and there was no scripture to be found) we HAD miracles.
David would you say THE LAW was tradition? Maybe? I've never given it much thought in that sense.
If they DIDN'T write it - how do we know it? Why trust it?Thankfully the Bible came out perfect. No reason to add to it. And it was authorized by REAL miracles. David do you believe the Catholic Church is filled with Classic saints that have 2 miracles? (Is that how they play the game?)
I don't think we have seen an authorized miracles since the Bible was last scribbled.
There are miracles recorded by the early church, such as John the Apostle surviving being burned in oil. Do you believe those, Rod?http://www.born-again-christian.info/...
Lee question:"There are miracles recorded by the early church, such as John the Apostle surviving being burned in oil. Do you believe those, Rod?"
I don't give them much thought Lee. It's outside of scripture. Since He WAS an inspired Bible writer it would indeed agree with Biblical authority (which is a great reason to do a miracle).
But I don't know enough about it... Your link wouldn't work. So I'll try it again later.
Since John had enough excitement in his life - a smidgen more isn't really an issue. Or worth pondering.Now if that started happening to his children - that would be a concern.
I'm certainly no computer hacker (most days I struggle just to turn the thing on). I tried 3 different ways to get Lee's link to work - then I spilled frootloops on it. All it said "Access Denied". I don't think the internet likes me. (I may have referred to it as a LITTLE SATAN in the past. I'm being judged for my sins.)
" If these discussions are mainly what Apologetics are about then I think the field is a little too "insider baseball" for me."
That is well said Heather, I think many people who visit here might have the same concern. Many are soon scared off.
Christian apologetics is an amazing thing. The problem is we have people here who are most likely NOT Christians - and they prove this by despising and under-appreciating biblical Apologetics. (Why are they here...would be a good question?) And I don't mean just Lee. I'm curious what this place would be like without Lee?!
We all need help with apologetics (generally defending our faith to numerous audiences). Some of us talk big but have missed the obvious. Just share Jesus and His Word.
I enjoy when new people start NEW Topics. There are so many areas to excel at that no single person can master it all. We need a few experts in every field of apologetics. This is where you come in Heather. Share what you've experienced - your successes and failures. There isn't a post that goes on here that I don't read.
And it's been a boys club for far too long. Sometimes we need a Mother/Wife/Sister to keep us in line.