Should Christians Abandon Apologetics?

[2PhiloVoid]

Having listened to most of the dialogue... I think Penner has the upper hand in that debate. Craig is really an old time fundamentalist wedded to modernist assumptions about the nature of truth, and the Rev. Penner's view of truth is far more congruent with my own attitude, per Thich Nhat Hanh's precepts of Enganged Buddhism, that truth is encountered in life. Craig seems to think truth can be encapsulated in propositions.

Just to be fair, Craig does at least give some affirmation to the idea that it ALSO requires the "mysterious" work of the Holy Spirit, either in part or in tandem with the rational measures any one of us may take, to enable us to realize God's presence and His truth in our lives. It's just that Craig seems to end up downplaying this in his actual practice.

 

[FireDragon76]

Just to be fair, Craig does at least give some affirmation to the idea that it ALSO requires the "mysterious" work of the Holy Spirit, either in part or in tandem with the rational measures any one of us may take, to enable us to realize God's presence and His truth in our lives. It's just that Craig seems to end up downplaying this in his actual practice.

It could explain the tendency for people who imitate Craig to smugly assume those of us who reject the popular arguments he presents are mentally deficient in some way, "blind to the obvious truth". There's a triumphalist streak in Craig I don't like, but it's common to many evangelicals and stems from their rationalistic, totalizing worldview.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It could explain the tendency for people who imitate Craig to smugly assume those of us who reject the popular arguments he presents are mentally deficient in some way, "blind to the obvious truth". There's a triumphalist streak in Craig I don't like, but it's common to many evangelicals and stems from their rationalistic, totalizing worldview.

Sure, some of my fellow Christians, especially evangelical ones in Craig's line of apologetics, are somewhat triumphalistic at times and they seem to push the way they do because of their seemingly "systematic" thinking (which they seem to think makes their position comprehensive in nature when it isn't).

On my part, I'll admit that I've been maybe a we bit defensive here or there, but hey, at the same time, I haven't gotten that way because I've either thought I have supreme, comprehensive answers to everything or that I've thought there's a political or social world to "win back." I will say that as I move forward in life and in my studies, I'm seeing more that, figuratively speaking, I can afford to insert some amount of Wu Wei into my Eschatologically inclined mindset. It's not really like I could depose the Devil from his position anyway. No, all I can do is try to stand firm against his spiritual intrusions.

As for you, I personally haven't ever thought of you as being "mentally deficient." Maybe this is because I've always tended to lean more toward Penner's position when I evaluate what's going on with various skeptics. I also simply know how hard life can be and sometimes skepticism toward Christianity can also be due to emotional distress and/or social and spiritual victimization of one form or another.

To some extent, like Eve, we're all victims of spiritual sabotage from outside agents, and our disbelief doesn't necessarily happen through moral faults that are completely our own, just in part, and I say this despite the contestation to the contrary that I know some of my fellow Christian "ethicists" or various secular justice theorists will assert.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why should we abandon defending the true faith, on the contrary we should try harder and harder and upgrade our apologetics, my faith pretty much revolves around apologetics. In apologetics I’ve realized that we have to be absolutely merciless and emulate the Church Fathers in dealing with heretics. I have a saying that I always keep in mind, love the heretic your enemy, but to love the heretic you have to butcher his false doctrines first.

I can appreciate your zeal to stand for the Lord, but you might want to listen to what Penner has to say and at least synthesize some of his points into the social praxis you've adopted from fellow Christians like William Lain Craig.

I'm also not sure I can agree with you that being "absolutely merciless" is a good way to label what we are doing as Christians when we offer up an "apologetic." I'm all for having a very strong and rational defense and to not put up with every erroneous syllable that falls from the mouth of various ultra-skeptics, but having a strong defense shouldn't sound like we're putting down a rabid dog.

My job and your job isn't to convert other people so much as it is to express as rationally, robustly, sincerely and kindly (as possible) our understanding of the ideas of our Christian Faith as they've been handed onto us by earlier Church members.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, in my opinion, those two purposes interfere with each other.

In what ways do you think these purposes interfere with each other?

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, in my opinion, those two purposes interfere with each other.

I think @2PhiloVoid is interested in expressing genuine hospitality and dialogue, but he can correct me if I'm wrong.

I suspect you and he probably wouldn't see eye to eye on alot of things religiously, if you think it's inherently problematic to welcome the input of nonbelievers.

 

[FireDragon76]

Penner is basically saying that society has become fragmented but it unfortunately deludes itself into thinking that it is simply pluralistic, containing different groups who still share some common threads of both social and epistemological thought. He thinks that this was caused by the Modernist in bringing about a social and epistemic post-modernism. (pp. 5-6)

Penner is correct on this point. It's not merely pluralism but also fragmentation.

The other day I had a talk with my pastor at church and we were coming from completely different worlds and I was not able to communicate anything meaningfully. He's still living in the 1960's with commies under every bed, and can't see the existential challenges that younger generations face. He badily misunderstands them and his dogmatic religion isolates him from fairly hearing other perspectives.

Anyways, that's part of the reason I left church... out of frustration that I could talk to him congenially off and on for years, but he only wanted to hear what he wanted to hear in all that, even twisting the meaning of the content of my conversations. So finally on Tuesday I just let it all out, every complaint I had with his approach and how much it made me feel like I was literally dying on the inside to be aligned with such an irresponsible, unresponsive kind of religious group. And he still doesn't get it.

 

[Barney2.0]

I can appreciate your zeal to stand for the Lord, but you might want to listen to what Penner has to say and at least synthesize some of his points into the social praxis you've adopted from fellow Christians like William Lain Craig.

I'm also not sure I can agree with you that being "absolutely merciless" is a good way to label what we are doing as Christians when we offer up an "apologetic." I'm all for having a very strong and rational defense and to not put up with every erroneous syllable that falls from the mouth of various ultra-skeptics, but having a strong defense shouldn't sound like we're putting down a rabid dog.

My job and your job isn't to convert other people so much as it is to express as rationally, robustly, sincerely and kindly (as possible) our understanding of the ideas of our Christian Faith as they've been handed onto us by earlier Church members.

We’re not all the Fathers of the Church merciless in their dealings with heretics, why should we shy away from doing so. Our job as Christians is to spread the Gospel of our Lord and Savior is it not? On the contrary heresy is just like a rabid dog that must be must down by Orthodoxy, if you don’t put it down by refuting it’s false doctrines, then it spreads like a disease.

 

[FireDragon76]

We’re not all the Fathers of the Church merciless in their dealings with heretics,

As a matter of fact, they weren't. St. Martin, bishop of Tours, was opposed to the persecution of heretics, and he was not necessarily unique in that regard.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

We’re not all the Fathers of the Church merciless in their dealings with heretics, why should we shy away from doing so. Our job as Christians is to spread the Gospel of our Lord and Savior is it not? On the contrary heresy is just like a rabid dog that must be must down by Orthodoxy, if you don’t put it down by refuting it’s false doctrines, then it spreads like a disease.

In the world, though, the false teachings, false gospels, heresies, and wickednesses continues increasing daily, as prophesied?
Where is there in the world that it is stopped, exposed, and forbidden, to tell falsehoods ?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

My job and your job isn't to convert other people so much as it is to express as rationally, robustly, sincerely and kindly (as possible) our understanding of the ideas of our Christian Faith as they've been handed onto us by earlier Church members.

I really don't care about your understanding of Christian ideas. I care about the truthfulness of Christian ideas.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I really don't care about your understanding of Christian ideas. I care about the truthfulness of Christian ideas.

Do you mean "the truth, regardless of if 'Chrisian' ideas agree with the truth" ?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Do you mean "the truth, regardless of if 'Chrisian' ideas agree with the truth" ?

Yes. I would want to know the evidence behind the christian ideas. Why should I believe them as being true? An explanation is not evidence.

 

[muichimotsu]

The problem here is that there are variations in how the prepositional phrase " to know" is used; it's almost like no one really "knows" what it is "to know" a number of things in our universe. As for our attempts "to know" or "to know about" various things involving the God of the Bible or about Jesus Christ, we might as well realize that knowing the Biblical God is kind of like attempting "to know" the essence of a hurricane, or even a black hole, by giving these things "a hug."

Somewhere in all of this, though, it becomes quite evident that human language, and our use of it, breaks down as we try to describe and explain the nature of powerful phenomena on our world and in our universe, and especially when we attempt to explicate the existence and truth of a God who is apparently Invisible and Transcendent, yet Immanent.

So yeah, in this "sense," I can honestly say I don't "know" certain things about the God of the Bible: I don't know that He exists.

So in a way you're going more the apophatic route than cataphatic? I say this having not studied that in over 10 years at this point, was my junior seminar as a religious studies major (back when our department was called Religion still for some reason)

 

[Radagast]

I suspect you and he probably wouldn't see eye to eye on alot of things religiously

We don't.

if you think it's inherently problematic to welcome the input of nonbelievers.

"How to do apologetics" is an internal Christian matter. I wouldn't expect Muslims to ask my input on how to run a mosque.

And, let's face it, the "Christian Apologetics" forum is generally pretty aggressive, rude, and hostile towards Christians. It's not the kind of place where I would want to have a discussion.

 

[FireDragon76]

"How to do apologetics" is an internal Christian matter. I wouldn't expect Muslims to ask my input on how to run a mosque.

Sure, but open dialogue doesn't really hurt, does it? It might even benefit us. As the Bible says "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another"?

I appreciate his gesture of hospitality, at any rate.

 

[FireDragon76]

Penner is basically saying that society has become fragmented but it unfortunately deludes itself into thinking that it is simply pluralistic, containing different groups who still share some common threads of both social and epistemological thought. He thinks that this was caused by the Modernist in bringing about a social and epistemic post-modernism. (pp. 5-6)

I think part of the reason is like the Rev. Dr. Gordon Bermant pointed out in one of the lectures of his I watched, that the West has denigrated ethics and made it subordinate to other areas of philosophy. Some are comfortable coming up with nihilistic responses, whether they be Christian or secular, and this tends to color the dialogue of ideas, and by extension, our entire way of being in the world.

 

[Radagast]

Sure, but open dialogue doesn't really hurt, does it?

Depends on how abusive it gets.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I really don't care about your understanding of Christian ideas. I care about the truthfulness of Christian ideas.

In that case, you'll have to establish that you even know the truth about the truth of religious knowledge. Have you?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So in a way you're going more the apophatic route than cataphatic? I say this having not studied that in over 10 years at this point, was my junior seminar as a religious studies major (back when our department was called Religion still for some reason)

I wouldn't say that my approach to the Christian Faith is so much apophatic as it is existential, with a good helping of Philosophical Hermeneutics mixed in to keep everything swirling in a nice pot of Christian Stew. Want some?