What should Christian apologists say?

[cloudyday2]

This question is for Christians or non-Christians - but mostly non-Christians. I was watching a debate between a Christian and an atheist over the existence of God (

). The Christian made a philosophical argument for a generalized creator of some kind, and seemed to consider this sufficient justification for belief in the very specific theology of Christianity. This apologetic strategy seems to be very common, and it is very unpersuasive to most non-Christians. Maybe this argument gives Christians a fig leaf to continue in their belief, and maybe that explains its popularity among apologists.

Assuming Christianity was actually true, what kind of apologetics arguments would you find persuasive? I like hearing personal testimonials about changes in lives, miraculous healings, or whatever. Why aren't these arguments presented by apologists?

 

[Hammster]

I'm not sure what arguments I would find persuasive. But you're right in that many apologists will make an argument for a creator, but cannot tie that argument to the biblical God in any way that's convincing.

If you've noticed, you don't see me arguing on here much. I'm a presuppositionalist. I don't believe that any argument I make will convince you. I believe that in order for you to believe, the Holy Spirit must change your heart. That doesn't mean that I cannot answer questions. 1 Peter 3:15 says that I should. But I will not try to argue you into the Kingdom.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't believe your post fits forum guidelines for apologetics from the SoP.
"As a general guide for posting topics, non-Christians who are challenging Christianity should offer arguments as to why Christian beliefs are incorrect or untrue."

 

[Winken]

Assuming Christianity was actually true, what kind of apologetics arguments would you find persuasive?

Biblical.

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't believe your post fits forum guidelines for apologetics from the SoP.
"As a general guide for posting topics, non-Christians who are challenging Christianity should offer arguments as to why Christian beliefs are incorrect or untrue."

That is true. I was hoping that discussion of apologetics itself might be acceptable too.

If the thread needs to be moved or closed, that is o.k.

 

[cloudyday2]

Biblical.

I'm not sure if you are being serious or joking? Maybe you are answering a slightly different question? I'm sure you realize that the Bible doesn't impress non-believers.

 

[cloudyday2]

One argument I often hear from Christians is that God does not want to give us too much reason to believe, because He wants us to have faith. On the other hand, in the story of doubting Thomas, Jesus tells Thomas to touch his wounds so that he may believe. Jesus says those with faith are blessed, but he seems to want everybody to have the evidence they need. Those with less faith will eventually get more evidence. That is how I understand the story anyway.

 

[Hammster]

One argument I often hear from Christians is that God does not want to give us too much reason to believe, because He wants us to have faith. On the other hand, in the story of doubting Thomas, Jesus tells Thomas to touch his wounds so that he may believe. Jesus says those with faith are blessed, but he seems to want everybody to have the evidence they need. Those with less faith will eventually get more evidence. That is how I understand the story anyway.

Whichever Christian said that is just wrong.

But I'm curious about what you'd accept as evidence.

 

[Wgw]

I'm not sure what arguments I would find persuasive. But you're right in that many apologists will make an argument for a creator, but cannot tie that argument to the biblical God in any way that's convincing.

If you've noticed, you don't see me arguing on here much. I'm a presuppositionalist. I don't believe that any argument I make will convince you. I believe that in order for you to believe, the Holy Spirit must change your heart. That doesn't mean that I cannot answer questions. 1 Peter 3:15 says that I should. But I will not try to argue you into the Kingdom.

I agree with you; I don't think we should resort to negative proselytism and try to badger atheists into conversion. That would be to descend to their level. However, I don't mind exposing the arguments of pompous New Atheists like Dawkins as being vacuous claptrap; also in the case of friendly atheists like @cloudyday2, who are nice guys, I will enjoy a debate wirh them to a point and I do think we can guide them to the truth, but I am not a Pelagian, and a certain synergy between that person and God the Holy Spirit is required to move things forward. Evangelism is presenting the good news, not bashing people over the head with it.

 

[Soyeong]

This question is for Christians or non-Christians - but mostly non-Christians. I was watching a debate between a Christian and an atheist over the existence of God (

). The Christian made a philosophical argument for a generalized creator of some kind, and seemed to consider this sufficient justification for belief in the very specific theology of Christianity. This apologetic strategy seems to be very common, and it is very unpersuasive to most non-Christians. Maybe this argument gives Christians a fig leaf to continue in their belief, and maybe that explains its popularity among apologists.

Assuming Christianity was actually true, what kind of apologetics arguments would you find persuasive? I like hearing personal testimonials about changes in lives, miraculous healings, or whatever. Why aren't these arguments presented by apologists?

If someone first accepts the existence of the God of classical theism, then then it is easier to persuade them with an argument for their Christian identity than to persuade someone that Christianity is true when they don't accept the existence of the God of classical theism. This is why, for example, that William Lane Craig always includes an argument for the resurrection of Jesus in his debates. There are many testimonials at his site, so I don't think it would be accurate to say that his approach is very unpersuasive to most non-Christians. Personal testimony can be persuasive, but a lot of people won't accept someone else's testimony. I personally find Aquinas' Five Ways to be the most persuasive when he is properly understood, but sadly most don't take the time to understand him.

John Loftus used to post at www.theologyweb.com and I've seen him say that he thinks it is ok to lie to win an argument. He also got caught lying red handed numerous times and there's a long thread about it at theologyweb, but their server died, however, it still exist in the web archive. So if you want to read that thread, click on the link below, search for "archive" in the comments section, and then copy and paste that link into your browser. He's long since lost any credibility.

http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2013/10/john-loftus-exits-in-infamy.html

 

[cloudyday2]

Whichever Christian said that is just wrong.

But I'm curious about what you'd accept as evidence.

I can tell you what types of evidence I looked for in the past. When I was about 20, I was a doubting Christian, and I wanted an "I saw the light" conversion experience like some Christians report. I thought that maybe my problem was being baptized as an infant, so I was baptized again as an adult in a charismatic mega church. Speaking in tongues was popular at that time (late 80s), but nothing seemed to happen. I gradually drifted into atheism.

In 2009, I had brief psychotic disorder. I became very religious, because I didn't know about psychosis. At first it was like an almost daily weirdness. After six months, I was mostly normal except that I would have a "vision" every month or two. This was my evidence for Christianity, but gradually I became confused and suspicious. God did not seem to be helping me to be more loving to my brother, and that was my highest priority. Finally, it seemed that everything was going bad. My crazy priest had swindled me out of several thousand dollars at the beginning of Lent. My mother was mugged on the last day of Lent. A week after Easter, I couldn't continue at that church (Orthodox). At first I thought I should find another church, but I was afraid to commune with heterodox. Eventually I learned about psychosis and that helped me to find an atheist explanation for my experiences.

So today, I look back and always reevaluate. Sometimes I think I might have some evidence in that mess somewhere.

 

[cloudyday2]

If someone first accepts the existence of the God of classical theism, then then it is easier to persuade them with an argument for their Christian identity than to persuade someone that Christianity is true when they don't accept the existence of the God of classical theism. This is why, for example, that William Lane Craig always includes an argument for the resurrection of Jesus in his debates. There are many testimonials at his site, so I don't think it would be accurate to say that his approach is very unpersuasive to most non-Christians. Personal testimony can be persuasive, but a lot of people won't accept someone else's testimony. I personally find Aquinas' Five Ways to be the most persuasive when he is properly understood, but sadly most don't take the time to understand him.

John Loftus used to post at www.theologyweb.com and I've seen him say that he thinks it is ok to lie to win an argument. He also got caught lying red handed numerous times and there's a long thread about it at theologyweb, but their server died, however, it still exist in the web archive. So if you want to read that thread, click on the link below, search for "archive" in the comments section, and then copy and paste that link into your browser. He's long since lost any credibility.

http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2013/10/john-loftus-exits-in-infamy.html

That is an interesting blog article. I didn't see any horrible dishonesty by Loftus, but maybe I didn't read carefully enough. His claim that Hitler was a Christian seems wrong. From what I have read, Hitler was not a believer, but he thought that Christianity was an important social institution that he could leverage. Of course I am not an expert on that.

 

[Hammster]

I agree with you; I don't think we should resort to negative proselytism and try to badger atheists into conversion. That would be to descend to their level. However, I don't mind exposing the arguments of pompous New Atheists like Dawkins as being vacuous claptrap; also in the case of friendly atheists like @cloudyday2, who are nice guys, I will enjoy a debate wirh them to a point and I do think we can guide them to the truth, but I am not a Pelagian, and a certain synergy between that person and God the Holy Spirit is required to move things forward. Evangelism is presenting the good news, not bashing people over the head with it.

I completely agree.

 

[Soyeong]

One argument I often hear from Christians is that God does not want to give us too much reason to believe, because He wants us to have faith. On the other hand, in the story of doubting Thomas, Jesus tells Thomas to touch his wounds so that he may believe. Jesus says those with faith are blessed, but he seems to want everybody to have the evidence they need. Those with less faith will eventually get more evidence. That is how I understand the story anyway.

That argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of "faith". "Faith" is synonymous with "trust" and the Bible does not use it in regard to believing in God's existence, but rather it is used in regard to believing in God's trustworthiness. The Bible does not actually make the case for the existence of God, but rather it assumes the existence of God from the beginning, and makes the case for His trustworthiness. It doesn't even make sense to trust God to exist because you would first need to believe that He exists before you could trust Him. God wants His people to trust Him and is not concerned with giving us too much reason to trust Him. You trust people because you think that you have good reason to, not because you think that you don't have good reason to. Jesus had performed miracles in Thomas' sight, Thomas had been told by Jesus that he would raise from dead, he had been told by the women, by the two who were along the road, and he had been told by the other disciples, so he had been given good reason to believe, but he had refused to trust them.

 

[Soyeong]

That is an interesting blog article. I didn't see any horrible dishonesty by Loftus, but maybe I didn't read carefully enough. His claim that Hitler was a Christian seems wrong. From what I have read, Hitler was not a believer, but he thought that Christianity was an important social institution that he could leverage. Of course I am not an expert on that.

Though the blog post was interesting, I was meaning for you to follow a link in the comments section of that blog post. This forum doesn't correctly read web archive links, so you need copy the link into your browser to get it to work.

I think Hitler believed in a cult called Positive Christianity, which is essentially what Christianity looks like when you remove the OT and all the parts of the NT that are deemed too Jewish and combine it with a unhealthy dose of nationalism. They were all about loving their neighbor, but they didn't consider Jews to be their neighbors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

Also, see this interview:

http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2014/520-int-058

 

[Moral Orel]

That argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of "faith". "Faith" is synonymous with "trust" and the Bible does not use it in regard to believing in God's existence, but rather it is used in regard to believing in God's trustworthiness. The Bible does not actually make the case for the existence of God, but rather it assumes the existence of God from the beginning, and makes the case for His trustworthiness.

"Synonymous" is a strong word to use to compare "faith" and "trust". You are right that the Bible uses the word "faith" to mean "trust" more-so than to mean "belief without proof" but that is the way "faith" is most commonly used in the secular world, and is a perfectly legitimate use of the word.

That's not to say that Christians use the word "faith" in an illegitimate way, just that there are more meanings to a word than one, and I wouldn't call them synonyms. There are times of course that I would say, "I have faith in my ability to..." because of sufficient evidence that I am capable. But it also needs to be used in the sense of "belief without proof" in the case of apologetics since the non Christian is going to have to believe in God first without ever seeing Him or hearing His voice.

That's where a lot of the confusion comes in with the discussions I have witnessed and been a part of. The atheist is using faith to mean "belief without proof" and the Christian is using faith to mean "trust based on a history of truth". But what word should be used to mean that initial belief without proof then?

 

[food4thought]

Apologetics for a Theistic God should be a starting point for an atheist, and once the existence of God is established, we can then move to the Bible, which establishes the Christian faith.

 

[cloudyday2]

Thought the blog post was interesting, I was meaning for you to follow a link in the comments section of that blog post. This forum doesn't correctly read web archive links, so you need copy the link into your browser to get it to work.

I think Hitler believed in a cult called Positive Christianity, which is essentially what Christianity looks like when you remove the OT and all the parts of the NT that are deemed too Jewish and combine it with a unhealthy dose of nationalism. They were all about loving their neighbor, but they didn't consider Jews to be their neighbors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

Also, see this interview:

http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2014/520-int-058

Here is a Wikipedia article that describes Hitler as a rationalist and materialist. Officially Hitler was a Catholic. ... who know what he really believed I suppose
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

 

[cloudyday2]

Apologetics for a Theistic God should be a starting point for an atheist, and once the existence of God is established, we can then move to the Bible, which establishes the Christian faith.

What about testimonials?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure if you are being serious or joking? Maybe you are answering a slightly different question? I'm sure you realize that the Bible doesn't impress non-believers.

Yes, actually It does.

They just don't know it yet.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Jesus won over Satan three times in the wilderness with, "It is written ..."