Devil's Advocate?

[BillyWheaton]

My guess is you really didn't know the bible that well and probably weren't in a good position to accept or deny it. It would be very hard to be a practicing christian and not understand the basic concept of faith.

Virtually EVERY Christian I know bacame "saved" at a time when they had limited knowledge of the Bible and virtually zero knowledge of apologetics! Thus virtually EVERY Christian was not in a "good position" to accept or deny it.
Regardless, it is easy to discredit someone but saying "yeah, but you probably weren't 'true' Christian in the first place.

That is a horrible argument and YOu know it. So why give it?

 

[BillyWheaton]

Each person who is a true Christian has two natures within them, and the devil .... The new nature is of God and battles the old, so playing the role of devils advocate is an on-going battle in a real way, as we are never completely free of this fight, where the old nature is prone to play the role of the devils advocate,

This would suggest you believe that taking the non Christian side of this argument would be giving in to the devil!
or am I misinterpreting you?
If so sorry

 

[BillyWheaton]

I'm not getting what the concern is.

The concern is, that there is a large powerful group of people that with few exceptions (like yourself) are willfully disinterested in any introspection.

Thus their defense of there opinion and choices are often extremely weak. But, there is nothing we (you and I) can do about it! It is not up for discussion.

It would be like me saying, hey if you want to buy my car, 1994 Honda, it is $100,000. And you WHAT??? it's not worth that! And you ask me, would you ever pay that much for a car like that?

to which I say, "I refuse to look at the price from the side of the buyer and see how the buyer sees this. Because, it is against my religion!"

 

[Calminian]

Virtually EVERY Christian I know bacame "saved" at a time when they had limited knowledge of the Bible and virtually zero knowledge of apologetics!

This has nothing to do with apologetics. We're talking about a basic definition and understanding of faith. It sounds like you never understood it. One doesn't need to be a bible scholar to be saved but he does need to understand the basic concept of biblical faith. It's very simple, but often overlooked by so called believers.

Thus virtually EVERY Christian was not in a "good position" to accept or deny it.

Bologna! No one becomes a christian without true saving faith.

Regardless, it is easy to discredit someone but saying "yeah, but you probably weren't 'true' Christian in the first place.

Actually you offered up your own understanding of faith. I simply suggested you may not have understood true christian faith as defined by the N.T., which is foundational to christianity.

That is a horrible argument and YOu know it. So why give it?

I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive. What have I said that's untrue? Do you feel you had (and have) a good understanding of biblical faith? Do you deny that this simple basic concept is foundational to being a christian? I think I have good reason to believe you weren't a believer by biblical standards. Yes you believed, but not in the sense the N.T. defines belief. Am I really making such an unfair point being that I basing it on your own words?

 

[Calminian]

The concern is, that there is a large powerful group of people that with few exceptions (like yourself) are willfully disinterested in any introspection.

Actually I may be disinterested in it at times myself. I just don't think it's wrong to play DA. As I said, seminary professors do it often to challenge their students. But I disagree with you that it's the only way to be introspective. You seem to be demanding everyone take the DA approach. If a christian doesn't want to I have no problem with it. I don't think you should either.

Thus their defense of there opinion and choices are often extremely weak.

Frankly your critique is very weak. The fact that a christian is not interested in taking a particular approach to test his arguments does not mean his arguments go untested. This is extremely weak logic.

It would be like me saying, hey if you want to buy my car, 1994 Honda, it is $100,000. And you WHAT??? it's not worth that! And you ask me, would you ever pay that much for a car like that?

to which I say, "I refuse to look at the price from the side of the buyer and see how the buyer sees this. Because, it is against my religion!"

Yikes! A definite non sequitur. You haven't thought these arguments through, IMHO. I would rethink them.

Personally I don’t see the harm in a christian taking an opposing position in a mock debate to further his understanding of his opposition. But I sure don’t see imperativeness of it either. I think you may need to take a deep breath and relax. It’s really not that big a deal.

 

[pharmacy_student]

When we were unsaved and fulfilling the desires of the flesh the Prince of Power of the Air (Satan) was Lord over us. When we got saved Jesus Christ pulled us out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. We've all played devil's advocate and to go back and try to play it would be unatural for a christian . . . and unsafe.

Jason

 

[Calminian]

When we were unsaved and fulfilling the desires of the flesh the Prince of Power of the Air (Satan) was Lord over us. When we got saved Jesus Christ pulled us out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. We've all played devil's advocate and to go back and try to play it would be unatural for a christian . . . and unsafe.

Jason

It sounds you don't understand the concept of devil's advocate. What biblical support do you have that says playing DA in a mock debate is unsafe and unatural? You feel a seminary professor is somehow sinning if he challenges his students in this way? Do you have any relevant biblical passages to support this belief you have? Might you be guilty of adding to scripture?

 

[BillyWheaton]

This has nothing to do with apologetics. We're talking about a basic definition and understanding of faith. It sounds like you never understood it. One doesn't need to be a bible scholar to be saved but he does need to understand the basic concept of biblical faith. It's very simple, but often overlooked by so called believers.



Bologna! No one becomes a christian without true saving faith.



Actually you offered up your own understanding of faith. I simply suggested you may not have understood true christian faith as defined by the N.T., which is foundational to christianity.



I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive. What have I said that's untrue? Do you feel you had (and have) a good understanding of biblical faith? Do you deny that this simple basic concept is foundational to being a christian? I think I have good reason to believe you weren't a believer by biblical standards. Yes you believed, but not in the sense the N.T. defines belief. Am I really making such an unfair point being that I basing it on your own words?

Well this is untrue! It is bizarre and confounding when someone, like yourself, implies that when someone evaluates Christianity and finds it wanting to suggest they NEVER UNDERSTOOD IT PROPERLY in the first place. It is ridiculous and offensive. Maybe You dont understand it.

 

[BillyWheaton]

Yikes! A definite non sequitur. You haven't thought these arguments through, IMHO. I would rethink them.

not at all, Christians often have zero insight into the fact that their arguments at times are weak, which I attribute at least in part to their often unwillingness to see the opposing point of view from the opposing side of the argument.

Oh, and I did "understand" "faith" in the "proper" NT way, thank you!

 

[BillyWheaton]

It sounds you don't understand the concept of devil's advocate. What biblical support do you have that says playing DA in a mock debate is unsafe and unatural? You feel a seminary professor is somehow sinning if he challenges his students in this way? Do you have any relevant biblical passages to support this belief you have? Might you be guilty of adding to scripture?

and I'm sure you can see my point with Pharmacy students response. To the extent that the Christian community fosters, promotes or even tolerates this type of attitude is to their detriment and could conceivable considered unethical.

 

[Calminian]

Well this is untrue! It is bizarre and confounding when someone, like yourself, implies that when someone evaluates Christianity and finds it wanting to suggest they NEVER UNDERSTOOD IT PROPERLY in the first place. It is ridiculous and offensive. Maybe You dont understand it.

So you find it bizarre that someone challenges your understanding of something? I find that bizarre. The doctrine of faith is no small matter in the N.T.. It is one thing all christians must understand. Maybe you had bad teachers (that very well could be the case) or maybe you just didn't pay attention. I’m not assigning blame.

Now one can intellectually understand the doctrine and still not be a christian. Truly some understand it and reject it. But in your case you didn't even understand it. If you articulated the doctrine correctly I would have acknowledged it. But since your understanding of it today is lacking, I have to conclude it was lacking then. No desire on my part to be ridiculing, nor offensive. Just calling it like I see it.

 

[Robinsegg]

May I recommend The Case for Christ or one of the other books by Lee Strobel? He was an athiest and set out to disprove Christianity. He couldn't do it and converted. It's an interesting read, and comes to it with the same questions he had and from the point of view he had as an athiest, I think.

I'll admit that many of our (Christians') arguments are poor or at least couched poorly. I'll also unequivocally state that some teachings from the pulpit or Sunday School teachers or schollars are just plain wrong. The claims of a teacher should be examined in light of Scripture to see if they hold up to the standard. Some will not and need to be discarded. Others will and need to be kept and explored.

Is there any specific claim in Scripture you'd like to suggest doesn't "hold up" to scrutiny? If so, I'd be happy to explore it with you. I have no problem telling you, "I don't know" or, "you're right, that teaching isn't right" or, "I'll try to find out for you".

Rachel

 

[Calminian]

May I recommend The Case for Christ or one of the other books by Lee Strobel? He was an athiest and set out to disprove Christianity. He couldn't do it and converted. It's an interesting read, and comes to it with the same questions he had and from the point of view he had as an athiest, I think.

Great point Rachel! Wish I thought of it. I would recommend his books also. Lee uses the DA approach in all his books. And to my knowledge, I've not heard an outcry from any in the christian community over it. This is why I'm a bit perplexed over the objections I'm hearing. This is the only place I've heard such objections.

 

[Robinsegg]

Great point Rachel! Wish I thought of it. I would recommend his books also. Lee uses the DA approach in all his books. And to my knowledge, I've not heard an outcry from any in the christian community over it. This is why I'm a bit perplexed over the objections I'm hearing. This is the only place I've heard such objections.

This is the first place I've seen such an attitude, also. I do think a person needs to be strongly grounded before taking this approach, but if one is secure enough to be able to do it, I see no problem.

Rachel

 

[linssue55]

I'm not a "born-again" Christian anymore

Once you believe you are entered into the royal family of God, and NOTHING, I mean NOTHING will EVER take you out of the family of God, not even your change of mind. "FAITH" is the proof. "Blessed are those that have not seen, yet believe".

romans 8:38-39

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, (MAN with their false doctrines) shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 11:29.… “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

1. Positional approach; Every believer in union with Christ;(Rom 8:1, Eph 1:3-6, Jude 1)

2. Logical approach; If God did the most for us when we were His enemies, He will do much more
....than the most for us as His beloved; (Rom 5:9, 10, 15 17, 20; 8:32)

3. The anthropomorphic approach; We are "held in God's hand" and He will never let go;
....(Jn 10:28, Psa 37:24)

4. Experiential approach; Even if we reject our salvation God remains faithful, He is immutable
....(2Tim 2:12,13)

5. The Family approach; We are born into God's family forever; (Jn 1:12, Gal 3:26)

6. Body approach; The Head of the body (Christ) can't ever say to a member of the body (believer)
....He does not need Him; (1Cor 12:21, Col 1:18)

7. Greek tense approach; Aorist tense (once and for all) "saved in the past with the result that we
....go on being saved forever); (Eph 2:8,9)

8. Inheritance approach; (1Pet 1:4,5)

9. Sovereignty approach; (2Pet 3:9)

10. Sealing ministry of The Holy Spirit; Guarantee of protection and safe delivery;
.....(2Cor 1:22, Eph 1:13, 4:30; 2Tim 2:19)

 

[OleAg]

I'm not a "born-again" Christian anymore for a variety of reasons. But one that fascinates me the most has to do with role play.

Basically, in almost anything in life, one can often find new aspects to something or new ways of defending something by playing Devil's Advocate. For example, a lawyer may find good ways to defend his client by acting ad if he is a the prosecuter in the same case.

I have NEVER Ever met a Christian willing to take the other side in an apologetics discussion.

Why is that do you think?

The answer, "why, I know I'm right" is the most popular. This one baffles me because if it were true, you should be able to persuade the rest of us.

Remember, this is a question to Christians - so please no "well when the Spirit touches your heart you'll be able to 'receive' His message." If you don't know a reason why Christians wont do this then please dont reply!

Well, I know why I wouldn't...simply put I can not in good consciense advocate something I don't believe in. That's why I could never be a lawyer, I could never defend someone who is guilty...
OleAg