Anyone converted to Christianity due to Christian Apologetics arguments?

Sssh. They'll close it down and I like it here.

? apparently no worries here..... for years I sought for and posted for and looked for ANYONE who had been converted on the forum, and no one said they were....

Those who do large scale apologetics often refer to testimonies on the outcome of their work and it's participation in their coming to Christ. But arguments don't lead anyone to salvation. The word means defense, and it is used to clear and plow the field rather than to sow it.

BigV said:

If so, I'd like to ask what did it for you?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

If we're going to talk about Christian Apologetics here, I think the real question is "did Christian Apologetics help me to maintain my faith after I started with the New Testament message"? And the answer would be a partial 'yes.'

Of course, in my particular case, the maintaining of my faith has also come by way of exploring and vetting atheistic arguments and literature and finding them to be wanting in various ways.

BigV said:

If so, I'd like to ask what did it for you?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know several personally. The example that I like best is my senior pastor and his family (meaning his dad, his mom, and his brother). His parents, and as a result, both he and his younger brother, were devout atheists, who looked at the Genesis account of Creation with particular enjoyment. However, when it was shown to them by one of their best friends (who happened to be a Christian) that the Creation as recorded in Genesis could actually be true as written, they became open to hearing more. They did not come to saving faith in Jesus on that basis alone, but they will tell you that Creation apologetics played a BIG part in all four of them finally becoming believers, something that all four of them still are today, believers that is, decades later.

--David

I'm up for correction on this, but I see two kinds of apologetics: On the one hand, I would say much of the apologetics we find in the early church, such as Justin Martyr, were focused on stopping persecution. "Look, we're not incestuous and we're not cannibals, so please stop killing us" kind of thing. Or, something along those lines. In other words, they were a defense. Hence, "apologetics."

And then you have the more recent form of apologetics, which strikes me as if arguments are being used as an evangelical tool, maybe? I'm not really sure. We see these debates between atheists and theists, but to what end? Is it simply to shore up the faith of believers? Do we argue with atheists to shore up our own faith? That seems a bit odd.

I didn't come to faith because of apologetics, but they have helped me understand some things. So, I am not discarding the idea of defending the faith against critique. What I question is the function of apologetics. If apologetics are used for the purpose of evangelism, then does it work? We may find some instances of success, but I would venture a guess that most people come to faith by virtue of something other than argument. I could be wrong.

It made me stronger in my faith, but then, that isn’t a good thing for Christian Apologetics.

BigV said:

If so, I'd like to ask what did it for you?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet you might not find too many??? I'm also willing to wager that the more atheists contest their faith here in this forum, the more their 'faith' may become strengthened???

According to an article posted from Psychology Today, lists 5 reasons one may believe in their chosen god. I've added to them a bit below..... Is this the be-all-end-all list, of course not

1) The believer possesses a need for control. The uncertainty or presented possible finality for the concept of death demonstrates lack in control. Since the government, police, or any other associated authority, has no control in preventing death, the believer feels a need for control and applies faith to their chosen god.


2) The person feels a need to cope with death. Repeated reminders of one's mortality increase people's belief in the supernatural and also prayer. Continued and repeated readings from the Bible or community gatherings in churches both assert the possibility to life after death, which appears to reduce psychological distress for many. Repetition is key. Re-reading the Bible, while also receiving affirmation from selected authority, via church leaders, offer added comfort and assurance, especially when in doubt or during trying times.


3) Unexplained suffering increases the belief in their proposed god. Ironically enough, suffering often actually increases the tendency for belief in god. The more unexplained the tragedy, the higher the probability the believer will associate the act as god's will. Meaning, a tornado killing an innocent child may be viewed as god's will. Alternatively, someone loosing their job may be from their own accord and is fully explainable; not being necessarily linked to a divine plan.


4) The believer feels the need for justice. Many feel a higher sense for morality if they believe a cosmic deity is watching over all. They also have less tendencies or less of a need to require earthly punishment. Believers feel a higher authority will settle the score in god's chosen time.


5) The battle between experimental thinking versus logical thinking drives many to belief in god. Experimental thinking is associated with the individual in which relies upon their 'gut' feeling in rendering decisions, and is classified as a more emotional decision. The logical thinker more-so makes decisions in a 'matter of fact' manor, void of any personal bias or emotional feelings of any kind. The logical thinker assesses the evidence presented, to determine if the evidence leads to a demonstrated and directly fitting conclusion.

Aryeh Jay said:

It made me stronger in my faith, but then, that isn’t a good thing for Christian Apologetics.

Click to expand...

Ironically, reading the Old Testament made me stronger in my faith ...

BigV said:

If so, I'd like to ask what did it for you?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Apologetics isn't intended to convert the skeptic. It is intended to help Christians justify and defend their faith.

BigV said:

If so, I'd like to ask what did it for you?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

I know of at least one former mormon on this forum who converted to Christianity because of the apologetics discussions.

Anyone converted to Christianity due to Christian Apologetics arguments?

Tinker Grey said:

Sssh. They'll close it down and I like it here.

Click to expand...

Hello TG. Don't give them any ideas LOL.

Yeah it is comfy here and been a long time since I visited it.

You might remember AV1611VET and I from the old GA board.
I see a few conversions to Christianity just as I have seen deconversions.
Are you ready to convert yet?

Thread on the old GA board for those interested:

Where is the general apologetics forum?

RomanSoldier said:

R.I.P.
Shut down permanently. Too many of the faithful were being shown the light of reason (deconverted)

Click to expand...

RomanSoldier said:

The deconversion to conversion rate was 7 to 1. Ouch.

Click to expand...

Before I come on board:

Eph 6:
14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness,
15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) said:

Apologetics isn't intended to convert the skeptic. It is intended to help Christians justify and defend their faith.

Click to expand...

Defining apologetics as "preaching to the choir" is closer to the truth than "converting the infidel". But for me it doesn't go far enough. I see apologetics as more like "handwaving to the choir". Like "Move along folks, nothing to see here. Just some boring dry academic debate stuff." Ministers generally regard apologetics with veiled distaste, like it's a necessary evil to keep a few doubters' second foot in the door. But mostly the purpose is to discourage, not encourage, the average layperson from trying to defend the faith.

If I'm a church leader, apologetics is for clueless people that miss the obvious. People came here for faith not reason. Worse yet, apologetics caries the seeds of its own destruction. The more you try to defend a faith tradition the more glaring its holes will be. So the less people are interested in apologetics the better.

Carbon said:

Defining apologetics as "preaching to the choir" is closer to the truth than "converting the infidel". But for me it doesn't go far enough. I see apologetics as more like "handwaving to the choir". Like "Move along folks, nothing to see here. Just some boring dry academic debate stuff." Ministers generally regard apologetics with veiled distaste, like it's a necessary evil to keep a few doubters' second foot in the door. But mostly the purpose is to discourage, not encourage, the average layperson from trying to defend the faith.

If I'm a church leader, apologetics is for clueless people that miss the obvious. People came here for faith not reason. Worse yet, apologetics caries the seeds of its own destruction. The more you try to defend a faith tradition the more glaring its holes will be. So the less people are interested in apologetics the better.

Click to expand...

You say you don't think Christian Apologetics goes far enough? Where is it you think it should go?

Carbon said:

Defining apologetics as "preaching to the choir" is closer to the truth than "converting the infidel". But for me it doesn't go far enough. I see apologetics as more like "handwaving to the choir". Like "Move along folks, nothing to see here. Just some boring dry academic debate stuff." Ministers generally regard apologetics with veiled distaste, like it's a necessary evil to keep a few doubters' second foot in the door. But mostly the purpose is to discourage, not encourage, the average layperson from trying to defend the faith.

If I'm a church leader, apologetics is for clueless people that miss the obvious. People came here for faith not reason. Worse yet, apologetics caries the seeds of its own destruction. The more you try to defend a faith tradition the more glaring its holes will be. So the less people are interested in apologetics the better.

Click to expand...

Apologetics is generally understood to remove impediments and answer objections. For example:

• Unbeliever: If Christianity is true, then the earth is flat; but the earth is not flat, therefore Christianity is not true.
• Believer: Christians do not believe that the earth is flat.

The response does not demonstrate the truth of Christianity, but it removes a reason to disbelieve Christianity.

2PhiloVoid said:

If we're going to talk about Christian Apologetics here, I think the real question is "did Christian Apologetics help me to maintain my faith after I started with the New Testament message"? And the answer would be a partial 'yes.'

Of course, in my particular case, the maintaining of my faith has also come by way of exploring and vetting atheistic arguments and literature and finding them to be wanting in various ways.

Click to expand...

You never cease to amaze and exasperate me.

ἀπολογία is literally "speech in defense" (in this case, of Christianity), in response to some charge or accusation (Greek: κατηγορία). I guess a person could say then that without some specific charge along the lines of "Christians believe/practice XYZ" that can be shown to be wrong, apologetics just degenerate into arguing for its own sake.

Besides, nowadays it's pretty much impossible to say "No, Christians don't believe/practice XYZ", because the religion is so diffuse that no doubt whoever is making the charge can find at least some example(s) of self-professed Christians doing exactly that, so what're you gonna do really. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ In light of this, you have to craft your replies very particularly to answer very broad charges with very qualified answers (e.g., "XYZ may have been found among this or that group, or may be found among this or that group today, but was never accepted in the mainstream of Christianity before such-and-such period"), which is often interpreted by the less charitable and more obnoxious of the new atheists as having conceded defeat in this or that way.

Anyway, I've met several people who were converted to Christianity by apologetics, but they were all formerly Muslims, which meant that they approached the religion with exactly the sort of mindset that is best suited to be answered with apologetics, having very definite (and wrong) understandings of what Christians believe, practice, and why. The average atheist who just doesn't care to begin with and thinks it is all nonsense whether their specific ideas about it are 100% correct or not is a different kettle of fish.

Nihilist Virus said:

You never cease to amaze and exasperate me.

Click to expand...

It's all in the set-up, NV!