Problematic Apologetics

[NorrinRadd]

That is a good analogy, Norm. My guess is that God allows the disparity in doctrinal differences to persist, just to give the watching world an opportunity to see how the children of God are capable of handling the differences between them with love and grace extended to each other. By this shall all men know that we are His disciples, by the love which we bear one for another.
...

Haven't heard guys like Justin Peters, John MacArthur, and Todd Friel talk about Pentecostals and Charismatics, have you?

[3 Resurrections]

NR, the brotherly love which Christians have been made capable of expressing by the indwelling Spirit is not always what they end up doing. Thus the injunction to "grieve not the Spirit". I've been a recipient of Christians behaving badly in my lifetime as well. But at this senior point in my life, I've realized it is much more healthy for my own peace of mind to look at my fellow Christians more in the light of what they COULD be capable of doing instead of their actions which don't quite measure up to that.

Notice that I carefully used above the word "opportunity" for the world to see Christians performing as Christ would have them do - not that Christians always step up to the plate and follow through on this opportunity, sad to say.

[whag]

OK, so I tend to stay in the "shallow waters" of Apologetics.

To me, it's absolutely clear that we need to "give an answer of the hope that lies within in us", and I regularly teach basic apologetics in my Church.

What I have seen many times, however, is that there seem to be two speheres of practice in the Christian faith -- the walk and the talk.

I've often expressed it as "when all is said and done, there is usually more said than done".

And I'll be clear -- this thread is obviously in response to Nick's "Journey". I wish him well, and I hope he responds here and interacts, because I'd really like to flesh this out, and another of my favorite sayings is "how can I know what I think til I hear myself say it". (or, in this case, type it) And it's by no means a condemnation of Nick - I think he's a great guy and sincere and really smart, but it appears to be yet another "OK, maybe I wasn't exactly right".

I have known, in my short half century of ministry on this planet, quite a number of apologists who, at one time, espouse a very specific view of eschatology, for example, only to come to a point where they have an "ah hah" moment, or maybe more of a drift, or change, or whatever, and come to a totally different conclusion.

When somebody becomes a preterest when they used to be a premillenialist, or general dispensationalist or whatever, their former podcasts, books, lectures, papers, youtube videos and teachings don't just disappear or get automatically updated.

To me, this looks like an uncertain trumpet. If I strongly believed and taught X, but now I strongly and firmly believe and teach Y, how do I know I'm right "now", or will continue the journey to Z.

I sometimes get chided by my apologist friends for not being stronger on apologetics, but I think I've figured out that there are people a lot smarter and more educated than me who believe X, and another whole set of people a lot smarter and more educated than me who believe Y, where X and Y conflict, but both proponents are good Christian people, just with different understandings.

It's complicated, though, when the X followers become Y subscribers, and so on.

And, at the risk of being accused of judgmentalism, I always wonder about this board's founder who seems to have been on a journey that has led all over the place, and ended up (as I understand it) in not such a good place now. It seems to make so much more sense to me to stay with the things that are clear in scripture, like the instructions we have to love one another, tell the lost about Jesus, encourage, teach, minister, feed the hungry, clothe the poor.

We seem to have this need to "know more" and to be masters of that knowledge, and to be teachers of that knowledge and "lead the way"... but I have seen so many such leaders have to "circle back" and and say, "OK, maybe that wasn't the way, so let's try THIS...."

At what point can we say, in regards to apologetics, "THIS is true and faithful" and "THIS is my personal opinion....". Even Paul seems to have done that.

I believe I had an excellent role model in my Pastor (in whose boots I still often preach) who was very good at "this we know" and "this is my opinion, and here's why...."

One of my Assocaite Pastors is a PhD who is very hard-coded dispensationalist. If that were all he was, he wouldn't be my Associate Pastor, but he's an excellent counselor, preacher, teacher.... Sometimes I wish I could get him to tone down the very specific dispensationalism, but this is my friend who is literally dying, in hospice care (my own daughter is his nurse) and he has said a number of times that he "wishes to die with his boots on", so to speak.

All this to say --- I really think we need to find a "middle ground". Churches should absolutely teach apologetics, but apologetics should not steer the Church.

Finally, I'll close with my Dr J.I. Packer story.

We used to have "Super Summer" at Baylor University in Waco, and young people would come from all over the state to spend TWO WEEKS of intensive training, along with sports and concerts and a great time in the Lord. We'd have Youth Speakers from all over the country (and the world), but we'd also have some "big name" speakers for the Adult sessions.

One year, such a speaker was J.I. Packer, and I was assigned to be his "handler". I was to make sure he got from his hotel to his speaking venue, accompany him to meals, get him home at night, and generally see to his needs. Kinda like being his butler or something. It was quite the honor and I got tremendous blessings from being around this giant of a theologian.

One day we were sittting in the Cafeteria having lunch, and a couple of (obviously) seminary students came over and apologized for interrupting, but they had a question for Dr Packer. He graciously accepted the invitation to hear their question, which was long and drawn out and something to do with eschatology but so deep I got lost in the quiestion.

When they finally stopped talking, Dr Packer had just lifted a fork of green beans to his mouth, but stopped, and laid the fork of green beans back on his plate, and folded his hands. The GREAT DR PACKER was about to say something amazingly profound, no doubt.

He said, after a thoughtful pause, "young men... there are some things God does, that we don't know why He does them.... we just know that He does them".

And he picked up his fork and continued eating his green beans. I sat there thnking WOW... DR Packer just said - in a most elegant way and in a British accent - "I don't know".

It was, of course, at that moment that I realized I can say "I don't know". I don't have to have an answer for everything, I don't have to konw everything --- I can stick with what I DO know while I seek to learn more.

So, where's the balance? How do we do apologetics without getting so bogged down that we eventually have to change course, while not really being "the doers" that we are told to be? Do we really need to spend so much time trying to figure out "eschatology" when there are so many other Kingdom things that need to be done?

Just throwing it out there.

I gotta be honest, Poke: I'm having a hard time following what your point is since eschatology is an entirely different monster than apologetics. There's no such thing as eschatology apologetics, AFAIK.

Can you summarize, or do I have to put it into ChatGPT to get the gist of it? Please leave DeeDee and Nick out of it.

[tabibito]

OK, so I tend to stay in the "shallow waters" of Apologetics.

To me, it's absolutely clear that we need to "give an answer of the hope that lies within in us", and I regularly teach basic apologetics in my Church.

What I have seen many times, however, is that there seem to be two speheres of practice in the Christian faith -- the walk and the talk.

I've often expressed it as "when all is said and done, there is usually more said than done".

And I'll be clear -- this thread is obviously in response to Nick's "Journey". I wish him well, and I hope he responds here and interacts, because I'd really like to flesh this out, and another of my favorite sayings is "how can I know what I think til I hear myself say it". (or, in this case, type it) And it's by no means a condemnation of Nick - I think he's a great guy and sincere and really smart, but it appears to be yet another "OK, maybe I wasn't exactly right".

I have known, in my short half century of ministry on this planet, quite a number of apologists who, at one time, espouse a very specific view of eschatology, for example, only to come to a point where they have an "ah hah" moment, or maybe more of a drift, or change, or whatever, and come to a totally different conclusion.

When somebody becomes a preterest when they used to be a premillenialist, or general dispensationalist or whatever, their former podcasts, books, lectures, papers, youtube videos and teachings don't just disappear or get automatically updated.

To me, this looks like an uncertain trumpet. If I strongly believed and taught X, but now I strongly and firmly believe and teach Y, how do I know I'm right "now", or will continue the journey to Z.

I sometimes get chided by my apologist friends for not being stronger on apologetics, but I think I've figured out that there are people a lot smarter and more educated than me who believe X, and another whole set of people a lot smarter and more educated than me who believe Y, where X and Y conflict, but both proponents are good Christian people, just with different understandings.

It's complicated, though, when the X followers become Y subscribers, and so on.

And, at the risk of being accused of judgmentalism, I always wonder about this board's founder who seems to have been on a journey that has led all over the place, and ended up (as I understand it) in not such a good place now. It seems to make so much more sense to me to stay with the things that are clear in scripture, like the instructions we have to love one another, tell the lost about Jesus, encourage, teach, minister, feed the hungry, clothe the poor.

We seem to have this need to "know more" and to be masters of that knowledge, and to be teachers of that knowledge and "lead the way"... but I have seen so many such leaders have to "circle back" and and say, "OK, maybe that wasn't the way, so let's try THIS...."

At what point can we say, in regards to apologetics, "THIS is true and faithful" and "THIS is my personal opinion....". Even Paul seems to have done that.

I believe I had an excellent role model in my Pastor (in whose boots I still often preach) who was very good at "this we know" and "this is my opinion, and here's why...."

One of my Assocaite Pastors is a PhD who is very hard-coded dispensationalist. If that were all he was, he wouldn't be my Associate Pastor, but he's an excellent counselor, preacher, teacher.... Sometimes I wish I could get him to tone down the very specific dispensationalism, but this is my friend who is literally dying, in hospice care (my own daughter is his nurse) and he has said a number of times that he "wishes to die with his boots on", so to speak.

All this to say --- I really think we need to find a "middle ground". Churches should absolutely teach apologetics, but apologetics should not steer the Church.

Finally, I'll close with my Dr J.I. Packer story.

We used to have "Super Summer" at Baylor University in Waco, and young people would come from all over the state to spend TWO WEEKS of intensive training, along with sports and concerts and a great time in the Lord. We'd have Youth Speakers from all over the country (and the world), but we'd also have some "big name" speakers for the Adult sessions.

One year, such a speaker was J.I. Packer, and I was assigned to be his "handler". I was to make sure he got from his hotel to his speaking venue, accompany him to meals, get him home at night, and generally see to his needs. Kinda like being his butler or something. It was quite the honor and I got tremendous blessings from being around this giant of a theologian.

One day we were sittting in the Cafeteria having lunch, and a couple of (obviously) seminary students came over and apologized for interrupting, but they had a question for Dr Packer. He graciously accepted the invitation to hear their question, which was long and drawn out and something to do with eschatology but so deep I got lost in the quiestion.

When they finally stopped talking, Dr Packer had just lifted a fork of green beans to his mouth, but stopped, and laid the fork of green beans back on his plate, and folded his hands. The GREAT DR PACKER was about to say something amazingly profound, no doubt.

He said, after a thoughtful pause, "young men... there are some things God does, that we don't know why He does them.... we just know that He does them".

And he picked up his fork and continued eating his green beans. I sat there thnking WOW... DR Packer just said - in a most elegant way and in a British accent - "I don't know".

It was, of course, at that moment that I realized I can say "I don't know". I don't have to have an answer for everything, I don't have to konw everything --- I can stick with what I DO know while I seek to learn more.

So, where's the balance? How do we do apologetics without getting so bogged down that we eventually have to change course, while not really being "the doers" that we are told to be? Do we really need to spend so much time trying to figure out "eschatology" when there are so many other Kingdom things that need to be done?

Just throwing it out there.

All sorts of scholars say all sorts of things, which brings up the possibility that "in many voices there is much confusion" (somewhere in Proverbs, I think, but not in those words). When I can't make a decision, I get the paper and pencil and devise reading comprehension tests based on the text under review. If the answers lead where the commentator is pointing, he got it right ... usually.

[Cow Poke]

I gotta be honest, Poke: I'm having a hard time following what your point is since eschatology is an entirely different monster than apologetics. There's no such thing as eschatology apologetics, AFAIK.

Eschatology is simply one of the areas that comes up in "defending the faith", which is what apologetics is.

Can you summarize, or do I have to put it into ChatGPT to get the gist of it?

Perhaps if you demonstrated a sincere desire have a conversation rather than just looking to pick a fight.

Please leave DeeDee and Nick out of it.

You have been promoted to chief moderator? The OP was in response to something Nick had been saying, so you'll please forgive me if I don't follow orders from you.

It looks like you got your feelings hurt and are just lashing out stirring up trouble.

[JimL]

NR, the brotherly love which Christians have been made capable of expressing by the indwelling Spirit is not always what they end up doing. Thus the injunction to "grieve not the Spirit". I've been a recipient of Christians behaving badly in my lifetime as well. But at this senior point in my life, I've realized it is much more healthy for my own peace of mind to look at my fellow Christians more in the light of what they COULD be capable of doing instead of their actions which don't quite measure up to that.

Notice that I carefully used above the word "opportunity" for the world to see Christians performing as Christ would have them do - not that Christians always step up to the plate and follow through on this opportunity, sad to say.

Right, christians are just like non-christians, they're human! That's why God had to become human in order to save them from, well, from whatever the punishment for being human is, burning in hell, annihilation, or just living without God. No one seems to know for sure.
But yeah, there is no one good, except the father in heaven. Although, I'm not sure if i would consider allowing people to be eternally tortured in hell to be "good" so I don't think that's the answer. Maybe he just allows them to live normal lives, just without God. At least that wouldn't be evil anyway, I don't think.

[rogue06]

I gotta be honest, Poke: I'm having a hard time following what your point is since eschatology is an entirely different monster than apologetics. There's no such thing as eschatology apologetics, AFAIK.

Can you summarize, or do I have to put it into ChatGPT to get the gist of it? Please leave DeeDee and Nick out of it.

Do a Google search for eschatological apologetics.

[whag]

Eschatology is simply one of the areas that comes up in "defending the faith", which is what apologetics is.



Perhaps if you demonstrated a sincere desire have a conversation rather than just looking to pick a fight.



You have been promoted to chief moderator? The OP was in response to something Nick had been saying, so you'll please forgive me if I don't follow orders from you.

It looks like you got your feelings hurt and are just lashing out stirring up trouble.

I’m sorry. I just meant I don’t need the context on Nick and DeeDee. Whatever they’re going through or have been through regarding their eschatological positions isn’t relevant to me. I am however fascinated by eschatology.

[whag]

Do a Google search for eschatological apologetics.

Okay thanks. This is the first hit dated 1999. I’m guessing it’s not really a state of the art branch of apologetics.

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/anvil/16-4_269.pdf

[Cow Poke]

I’m sorry. I just meant I don’t need the context on Nick and DeeDee.

Then ignore it.

Whatever they’re going through or have been through regarding their eschatological positions isn’t relevant to me. I am however fascinated by eschatology.

But you're not the boss here, Whag --- just because you're interested (or not) in something doesn't mean you get to control what somebody else writes.

It's like I hacked you off or something and you're just finding ways to try to pick a fight. I'm not playing.

[whag]

I'm a little confused about this whole post. The post refers to apologetics, but all the examples refer to one's doctrinal stances on secondary issues. That's not what most people mean by "apologetics". That's theology. But I do agree that people unnecessarily drag churches through those weeds more than they should.

As someone who is married to a Christian and has read the Bible, I have always been fascinated and perplexed by eschatology and why it’s even considered important to people in this age. When I read books of prophecy and apocalypse, particularly the book of revelation, I’m just lost and confused. Revelation doesn’t seem like it jibes with what we know of the Jesus described in the gospels. It feels tacked on and more like a fever dream than anything else.

Like has been covered here, it seems almost impossible to interpret in any meaningful and edifying way. If I was a Christian, these are the books that would be the hardest for me to believe, quote, and meditate upon.

[Cow Poke]

As someone who is married to a Christian and has read the Bible, I have always been fascinated and perplexed by eschatology and why it’s even considered important to people in this age. When I read books of prophecy and apocalypse, particularly the book of revelation, I’m just lost and confused. Revelation doesn’t seem like it jibes with what we know of the Jesus described in the gospels. It feels tacked on and more like a fever dream than anything else.

Like has been covered here, it seems almost impossible to interpret in any meaningful and edifying way. If I was a Christian, these are the books that would be the hardest for me to believe, quote, and meditate upon.

I'm sure you've heard about the great difference between "the suffering servant" and the "Reigning Lord" - Revelation obviously shows much more of the latter. And, yes, it can be quite challenging to read and understand.

[Juvenal]

I gotta be honest, Poke: I'm having a hard time following what your point is since eschatology is an entirely different monster than apologetics. There's no such thing as eschatology apologetics, AFAIK.

Can you summarize, or do I have to put it into ChatGPT to get the gist of it? Please leave DeeDee and Nick out of it.

Let me guess ... looking for some more Apologetics to discuss, you bumped this thread without noticing it was a zombie?

[KingsGambit]

As someone who is married to a Christian and has read the Bible, I have always been fascinated and perplexed by eschatology and why it’s even considered important to people in this age. When I read books of prophecy and apocalypse, particularly the book of revelation, I’m just lost and confused. Revelation doesn’t seem like it jibes with what we know of the Jesus described in the gospels. It feels tacked on and more like a fever dream than anything else.

Like has been covered here, it seems almost impossible to interpret in any meaningful and edifying way. If I was a Christian, these are the books that would be the hardest for me to believe, quote, and meditate upon.

I always brace myself when I get quoted from a post I made several years ago, because I usually have no idea what I was thinking at the time, but at least this one was straighforward enough.

I guess it depends on what preconceived notions you're going in with. You sort of see references to judgment here and there in the gospels, with Jesus talking about the fires of gehenna, or the mention of being thrown down with a millstone, or "stop sinning or something worse will happen to you" in John 5:14. They're right there in plain sight.

I think it's fair that people don't draw as many firm conclusions from Revelation given its genre and that it's written cryptically. To use one example, a number of preterists, like on here back in the day, seem to take as gospel truth that the devil is bound, and the primary (only?) rationale for that is the verse that states that the devil is bound. To me, that's taking A) one possible interpretation of imagery in the most metaphorical book of the Bible B) that depends on one particular view (preterism) even being true in the first place. I'm not willing to have that sort of confidence and cavalierly state that the devil is for sure bound.

(The issue with relying on Revelation also comes in with the debate over the nature of hell, but I'll decline to get too far into those weeds for now.)

[rogue06]

Let me guess ... looking for some more Apologetics to discuss, you bumped this thread without noticing it was a zombie?

Meh. It's been bumped multiple times including May of this year.