Is Fideism So Bad?

[tabibito]

Scripture Verse: John 20

²⁹ Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

© Copyright Original Source

Nope

So then. Thomas was given the sign that he asked for.
And by way of demonstrating that your interpretation of the text of Matt 12:39 is flawed, we have a wealth of information about what a faithful generation can expect when it asks for a sign: Acts 4:29-30 for example -

29 “And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your bond-servants may speak Your word with all confidence,
30 while You extend Your hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.”

You declare yourself a teacher, but you can't rightly divide the scriptures.

[Darfius]

So then. Thomas was given the sign that he asked for.

And clearly condemned for asking for it. Or are you pretending (lying) as if "doubting Thomas" is being held up as an example to be followed?

And by way of demonstrating that your interpretation of the text of Matt 12:39 is flawed, we have a wealth of information about what a faithful generation can expect when it asks for a sign: Acts 4:29-30 for example -

29 “And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your bond-servants may speak Your word with all confidence,
30 while You extend Your hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.”

They didn't ask for signs for themselves but to prove that their preaching came from God in the context of facing persecution. "Take note of their threats and give us confidence". This does nothing to disprove the fact that Jesus said the wicked "seek after" a sign. They were not condemned as unworthy of a sign, they were condemned for seeking it. Just as Thomas was. Learn to read.

You declare yourself a teacher, but you can't rightly divide the scriptures.

Where did I declare myself a teacher? And "rightly divide" is a popular catchphrase among charlatans on YouTube recently who teach that the words of Jesus were "just for the Jews" while Christians should only concern themselves with Paul. Thank you for exposing yourself for me.

[tabibito]

I don't recall anyone saying that it was appropriate to ask for signs and wonders for no more than personal benefit, but if you want to believe that a person should not pray for release from sins and healing, go for it.

[lee_merrill]

yes but the focus was the bible, not apologetic arguments. I'm asking this sincerely - did the Apostles or the writers on the NT use apologetic arguments?

A lot! Jesus used signs he was performing as evidence for his claims (John 10:37-38). And Luke writes:

"He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:3)

And the apostles claimed to be eyewitnesses, as the ground for people's belief:

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Peter 1:16)

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

I thought you were arguing against Darfius' claims. It seems that I may have interpreted something - and I can't work out how. So, prithee enlighten me.

I'm just trying to work out how your response applied.

[rogue06]

Mild criticism is not condemnation. And as noted, Thomas' request for a sign was not refused. It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that he was not numbered with the wicked generation.

Yup. Nobody holds up Thomas as the epitome of the ideal response among the disciples, but his reaction is most certainly not refused and his request was accommodated as one would any completely reasonable request.

[tabibito]

yes but the focus was the bible, not apologetic arguments. I'm asking this sincerely - did the Apostles or the writers on the NT use apologetic arguments?

Yes. Apologetics as such presents arguments to counter criticism, but the core component of apologetics is to provide reasons for faith. Every presentation of the gospel is an exercise in apologetics. The gospel is presented with a view to persuading people to commit to Christ.

Q: What's in it for me? Why should I commit?

A: "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation" - this is an apologetic argument - it establishes a reason for committing.

The core component of apologetics is to provide logically valid reasons for faith.

But the question does arise - What do you mean by apologetics?

This from Wikipedia

Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse.^[1][2][3]Early Christian writers (c. 120–220) who defended their beliefs against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called Christian apologists.^[4] In 21st-century usage, apologetics is often identified with debates over religion and theology.

[Machinist]

Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse

Catholics defend their beliefs with apologetics, as do Mormons and Jews and all the others. They all have sets of systematic argumentation to present to any skeptic of their particular way of seeing and interpreting things, and reasons as to why the skeptic should change their view to align with the respective viewpoint.