Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

When did "Apologetics" Become a Dirty Word?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • When did "Apologetics" Become a Dirty Word?

    As someone who wasn't raised in mainstream Christianity, I didn't "discover" apologetics till probably the turn of this century. Before that discovery (and before my full acceptance of Christ), I assumed that there might be some intellectual basis to this whole Christianity thing, but that it was outside of my reach. The concept of a systematic theology seemed shadowy to me. Something maybe a lot of highfalutin types talked about in their ivory towers. I didn't know anything about the C.S. Lewis' of the Christian faith, much less about popularizers like Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel. But once I encountered the works of folks like J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, and yeah, C.S. Lewis, I came to realize that there was a deeply intellectual level and long historical basis for a reasonable understanding of Christianity. It really turned my world around, and, unfortunately, I bored the hell out of my friends and family who I wanted to talk to about these things non-stop.

    I was amazed by the richness of the Christian belief system. The concept of a deeply reasoned systematic theology was fascinating to me, and helped answer so many questions I had, and so many questions that my non-believing friends had, but most Christians I know/knew had zero patience for it. Instead they emphasized a very simple faith. One that didn't ask question or seek deep answers. One that was primarily based on personal experiences. Now, I have no problem whatsoever with a faith based on personal experiences, but that seems like the tip of the iceberg to me of a reason based faith.

    More than that, my friends and family who base their faith on experience are, more than not, actually anti-intellectual. A well-reasoned, systematic theological system is not fully trusted. Apologetics is a dirty word to them because it brings to mind the idea of apologizing for being a Christian. And like I once thought, they think of deeper theology as something left to out of touch eggheads debating how many angels can dance on a pin head in their ivory towers. I sort've given up on these types who simply do not want to hear about the early church, NT scholarship, and natural theology.

    Lately though, I've been seeing an attack on apologetics from another sector I totally didn't expect. From actual intellectuals. I've run into a number of people I accept as Christian intellectuals (of sorts) that seem to totally distrust Christian apologetics as something ad hoc, and not worthy exploring. Like my anti-intellectual friends and family they seem to have a deep distrust of a reasoned faith, and prefer a definition of faith that's unknowable, and mysterious, and more or less blind. Apologetics is a dirty word.

    Has anyone else noticed this trend? Anyone want to discuss this issue you if you have?

    K, that's what this thread is about. Thanks.
    Last edited by Adrift; 06-10-2016, 08:44 PM.

  • #2
    I was in my missions class last semester and there was a student who basically said that guys out there doing apologetics are wrong and contrary to what we're supposed to do. I held my tongue.

    "Fire is catching. If we burn, you burn with us!"
    "I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to stay here and cause all kinds of trouble."
    Katniss Everdeen


    Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by thewriteranon View Post
      I was in my missions class last semester and there was a student who basically said that guys out there doing apologetics are wrong and contrary to what we're supposed to do. I held my tongue.
      I just don't understand it. When did being anti-intellectual become a virtue in the academic world?

      Comment


      • #4
        I was introduced to genuine theology through apologetics, and as I became more engaged in theology, I got more and more frustrated with the relative shallowness of apologetics. I don't mean apologetics isn't rigorous, but when your concern is defending belief from external challenges, you usually approach questions differently than when you are approaching them out of a genuine personal interest or in a personal conversation. Also, in my apologetics discussions, I often found myself feeling like I was trying to win the argument rather than provide perspectives worthy of consideration, and I didn't really like that side of myself. The latest new evidence of a historical Jesus or even of the historicity of the Shroud of Turin, or new Eucharistic miracles... I'm not really interested in them. I don't doubt any of these things, so why should further proof of their veracity affect me?

        There are people with intellectual obstacles to embracing Christianity. Apologetics can help them overcome those obstacles. But there's more than just intellectual processes at play in anyone's conversion process, and trying to win the argument doesn't always help a person overcome the obstacles in their own will.
        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
          I was introduced to genuine theology through apologetics, and as I became more engaged in theology, I got more and more frustrated with the relative shallowness of apologetics. I don't mean apologetics isn't rigorous, but when your concern is defending belief from external challenges, you usually approach questions differently than when you are approaching them out of a genuine personal interest or in a personal conversation. Also, in my apologetics discussions, I often found myself feeling like I was trying to win the argument rather than provide perspectives worthy of consideration, and I didn't really like that side of myself. The latest new evidence of a historical Jesus or even of the historicity of the Shroud of Turin, or new Eucharistic miracles... I'm not really interested in them. I don't doubt any of these things, so why should further proof of their veracity affect me?

          There are people with intellectual obstacles to embracing Christianity. Apologetics can help them overcome those obstacles. But there's more than just intellectual processes at play in anyone's conversion process, and trying to win the argument doesn't always help a person overcome the obstacles in their own will.
          Outside of "winning arguments" what are you thoughts on natural theology which are mostly philosophical and do not necessarily derive from divine revelation? And by the way, I think arguments about Eucharist miracles and the shroud of Turin are weak as well, but I think the study of the historical Jesus definitely has merit.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            Outside of "winning arguments" what are you thoughts on natural theology which are mostly philosophical and do not necessarily derive from divine revelation?
            I think we need to distinguish between things that we think should be self-evident to our audience, things which people at another time and place thought were self-evident, and what the average person in our society thinks is self-evident. Natural theology needs to be tied more closely to this last category than it generally is. Which is to say, you meet them where they are.

            And by the way, I think arguments about Eucharist miracles and the shroud of Turin are weak as well, but I think the study of the historical Jesus definitely has merit.
            I never said I think they're weak. I just don't care about them.
            Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
              I think we need to distinguish between things that we think should be self-evident to our audience, things which people at another time and place thought were self-evident, and what the average person in our society thinks is self-evident. Natural theology needs to be tied more closely to this last category than it generally is. Which is to say, you meet them where they are.
              Maybe it's just me, but I've found that what we find self evident isn't so different from what other peoples in other times and places have found self evident. People are still using the apologies of Augustine, Aquinas, Leibniz, and Lewis in their modern day apologetics, and they often seem to me as relevant today as they did when they were formulated.

              I never said I think they're weak. I just don't care about them.
              So you would say that your lack of interest in these sorts of things is more subjective than not, but not without merit, correct?

              Comment


              • #8
                The thread of anti-intellectualism among Christians is not new. I suspect apologetics is under fire because the average joe is just learning that it is a "thing."
                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  As someone who wasn't raised in mainstream Christianity, I didn't "discover" apologetics till probably the turn of this century. Before that discovery (and before my full acceptance of Christ), I assumed that there might be some intellectual basis to this whole Christianity thing, but that it was outside of my reach. The concept of a systematic theology seemed shadowy to me. Something maybe a lot of highfalutin types talked about in their ivory towers. I didn't know anything about the C.S. Lewis' of the Christian faith, much less about popularizers like Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel. But once I encountered the works of folks like J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, and yeah, C.S. Lewis, I came to realize that there was a deeply intellectual level and long historical basis for a reasonable understanding of Christianity. It really turned my world around, and, unfortunately, I bored the hell out of my friends and family who I wanted to talk to about these things non-stop.

                  I was amazed by the richness of the Christian belief system. The concept of a deeply reasoned systematic theology was fascinating to me, and helped answer so many questions I had, and so many questions that my non-believing friends had, but most Christians I know/knew had zero patience for it. Instead they emphasized a very simple faith. One that didn't ask question or seek deep answers. One that was primarily based on personal experiences. Now, I have no problem whatsoever with a faith based on personal experiences, but that seems like the tip of the iceberg to me of a reason based faith.

                  More than that, my friends and family who base their faith on experience are, more than not, actually anti-intellectual. A well-reasoned, systematic theological system is not fully trusted. Apologetics is a dirty word to them because it brings to mind the idea of apologizing for being a Christian. And like I once thought, they think of deeper theology as something left to out of touch eggheads debating how many angels can dance on a pin head in their ivory towers. I sort've given up on these types who simply do not want to hear about the early church, NT scholarship, and natural theology.

                  Lately though, I've been seeing an attack on apologetics from another sector I totally didn't expect. From actual intellectuals. I've run into a number of people I accept as Christian intellectuals (of sorts) that seem to totally distrust Christian apologetics as something ad hoc, and not worthy exploring. Like my anti-intellectual friends and family they seem to have a deep distrust of a reasoned faith, and prefer a definition of faith that's unknowable, and mysterious, and more or less blind. Apologetics is a dirty word.

                  Has anyone else noticed this trend? Anyone want to discuss this issue you if you have?

                  K, that's what this thread is about. Thanks.
                  I'll be completely honest here. I don't actually think that one's faith needs to, or even should be based on intellectual reasoning. But I also do not think that you should base your faith on 'personal experience'. To me, faith is simply trusting the words of the Gospel when it says that the Son of God came down from Heaven and became human so he could die for our sins and be raised for our justification. Now, I'm not saying that people can't become convinced of the historical underpinnings of the Christian faith, because there are people who have been convinced in that way, nor do I mean to say that we shouldn't use our intellect in order to form a rigorous systematic theology, but to me a person doesn't become a Christian simply by assenting intellectually to the historical events described in the gospels, but by recognizing his need for the sacrificial work of Christ, apart from any self-righteous works of his own.

                  So, while I think apologetics has a legitimate place in defending the faith, and appreciate the depth of Christianity's intellectual history, I do not think faith needs to be based on reason. If that were the case then it seems to me that God has closed the door to salvation to anyone but the wise.

                  And just to clarify, I'm not saying that you hold to the view I'm criticizing in my above rant, I'm simply laying out a rough outline of my own view.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                    The thread of anti-intellectualism among Christians is not new. I suspect apologetics is under fire because the average joe is just learning that it is a "thing."
                    My concern isn't with the anti-intellectual (though that is a concern), rather it is with the intellectual who find apologetics seemingly useless and unprofitable.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                      I'll be completely honest here. I don't actually think that one's faith needs to, or even should be based on intellectual reasoning. But I also do not think that you should base your faith on 'personal experience'. To me, faith is simply trusting the words of the Gospel when it says that the Son of God came down from Heaven and became human so he could die for our sins and be raised for our justification. Now, I'm not saying that people can't become convinced of the historical underpinnings of the Christian faith, because there are people who have been convinced in that way, nor do I mean to say that we shouldn't use our intellect in order to form a rigorous systematic theology, but to me a person doesn't become a Christian simply by assenting intellectually to the historical events described in the gospels, but by recognizing his need for the sacrificial work of Christ, apart from any self-righteous works of his own.

                      So, while I think apologetics has a legitimate place in defending the faith, and appreciate the depth of Christianity's intellectual history, I do not think faith needs to be based on reason. If that were the case then it seems to me that God has closed the door to salvation to anyone but the wise.

                      And just to clarify, I'm not saying that you hold to the view I'm criticizing in my above rant, I'm simply laying out a rough outline of my own view.
                      I see the whole subject of a grounded faith as a handshake of sorts between the intellect and an innate experiential/Holy Spirit call. When you say that "I do not think faith needs to be based on reason" I think we may be talking past one another to some extant, because even the experiential requires some sort of reasoning ability in my opinion. Otherwise how do we distinguish the call from God, and one that is not?

                      Also, I am wholly untrustworthy of the phrase "you just gotta accept it on faith", and to a degree, I'm untrustworthy of the phrase "God works in mysterious ways". Both phrases seem like cop-outs to me. I've seen more people fall away from the faith because of those sorts of answers than anything, and I can't blame them. Its hard to build a foundation on such soft ground. More than this though, I feel that apologetics are a requirement (especially in this day and age) in successful witnessing. The pat answers Christians might have been able to get away with in a pre-internet, mostly Christo-theistic world do not work at all in our present age where even the concept of God is called into question.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        I see the whole subject of a grounded faith as a handshake of sorts between the intellect and an innate experiential/Holy Spirit call. When you say that "I do not think faith needs to be based on reason" I think we may be talking past one another to some extant, because even the experiential requires some sort of reasoning ability in my opinion. Otherwise how do we distinguish the call from God, and one that is not?
                        Well, the intellect has it's place in grounding the faith in the sense that without any sort of reasoning ability you won't be able to even understand the message of the gospel in the first place (though I'm not saying that reason is limited to this aspect alone=. I actually have a bigger problem with the innate experiental/Holy Spirit call aspect, because if not expounded on in a careful way it tends to lead people to question their own faith if and when Christians around them start making some sort of "inner experience" a requirement for salvation. ISTM that the only "inner experience" that is required is the realization that you're a sinner whose own works are useless before God when it comes to your salvation, and that you need to trust in the atoning work of Jesus in order to be saved. Any sort of "experience" or "feeling" apart from that should be received thankfully as a gift from God, provided it is actually from God of course, but should not be regarded as essential to having a genuine faith.

                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        Also, I am wholly untrustworthy of the phrase "you just gotta accept it on faith", and to a degree, I'm untrustworthy of the phrase "God works in mysterious ways". Both phrases seem like cop-outs to me. I've seen more people fall away from the faith because of those sorts of answers than anything, and I can't blame them. Its hard to build a foundation on such soft ground. More than this though, I feel that apologetics are a requirement (especially in this day and age) in successful witnessing. The pat answers Christians might have been able to get away with in a pre-internet, mostly Christo-theistic world do not work at all in our present age where even the concept of God is called into question.
                        There are times (probably more often than not) when those phrases are inappropriate, especially when it's used to dismiss legitimate concerns from believers with doubts and honest seekers, but at the same time there are some aspects of the faith, such as the Trinity and (in the case of people such as myself) the Real Presence, which I think simply cannot be understood by the intellect, and you simply have to accept the bible's teaching on that aspect on faith.

                        I have no disagreements on your point about apologetics, but I do take issue with the term "witnessing" as it's used by many evangelicals today, because "witnessing" for far too many evangelicals tend to devolve into explaining to people how God is aware of all of your life's problems and issues, and He wants to help you with them, and will do it, if you only accept Jesus into your heart and ask God to forgive you for your sins. And on top of that the whole concept of witnessing seem to gravitate towards some sort of notion of being as efficient as possible, where you're expected to use all sorts of "witnessing strategies" to maximize turnout (i.e getting people to pray a "prayer of salvation") instead of sitting down with each person you're witnessing to and taking your time to explain to them what the Bible says about our situation as sinners, and what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. Preferably by actually reading the Bible with them and explaining the text to them as the need arises.

                        Of course, I have a pretty strong suspicion that your view of witnessing is a bit more nuanced and complex than the one I lambasted above.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Faith - a belief - is essential to knowing anything. Truth is the basis of - a belief - faith.

                          Now the term "faith" as more meanings than merely a belief in what is true. Belief systems with gods or God - described as a religious faith. A faith. So some will reject the use of the term outright saying they have no "faith." Which of course is not true. But their use of the term disallows the meaning of "a belief" that something is true or not true.
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            As someone who wasn't raised in mainstream Christianity, I didn't "discover" apologetics till probably the turn of this century. Before that discovery (and before my full acceptance of Christ), I assumed that there might be some intellectual basis to this whole Christianity thing, but that it was outside of my reach. The concept of a systematic theology seemed shadowy to me. Something maybe a lot of highfalutin types talked about in their ivory towers. I didn't know anything about the C.S. Lewis' of the Christian faith, much less about popularizers like Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel. But once I encountered the works of folks like J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, and yeah, C.S. Lewis, I came to realize that there was a deeply intellectual level and long historical basis for a reasonable understanding of Christianity. It really turned my world around, and, unfortunately, I bored the hell out of my friends and family who I wanted to talk to about these things non-stop.

                            I was amazed by the richness of the Christian belief system. The concept of a deeply reasoned systematic theology was fascinating to me, and helped answer so many questions I had, and so many questions that my non-believing friends had, but most Christians I know/knew had zero patience for it. Instead they emphasized a very simple faith. One that didn't ask question or seek deep answers. One that was primarily based on personal experiences. Now, I have no problem whatsoever with a faith based on personal experiences, but that seems like the tip of the iceberg to me of a reason based faith.

                            More than that, my friends and family who base their faith on experience are, more than not, actually anti-intellectual. A well-reasoned, systematic theological system is not fully trusted. Apologetics is a dirty word to them because it brings to mind the idea of apologizing for being a Christian. And like I once thought, they think of deeper theology as something left to out of touch eggheads debating how many angels can dance on a pin head in their ivory towers. I sort've given up on these types who simply do not want to hear about the early church, NT scholarship, and natural theology.

                            Lately though, I've been seeing an attack on apologetics from another sector I totally didn't expect. From actual intellectuals. I've run into a number of people I accept as Christian intellectuals (of sorts) that seem to totally distrust Christian apologetics as something ad hoc, and not worthy exploring. Like my anti-intellectual friends and family they seem to have a deep distrust of a reasoned faith, and prefer a definition of faith that's unknowable, and mysterious, and more or less blind. Apologetics is a dirty word.

                            Has anyone else noticed this trend? Anyone want to discuss this issue you if you have?

                            K, that's what this thread is about. Thanks.
                            I figure these aren't the droids answers you're looking for, but I have two speculations:

                            1. I think the changing contexts of the word in general might have something to do with it. Back in, oh, 2008-2012, the only times I ever saw the words "apologetics" and "apologist" were in posts or books about religious arguments. But in the last few years, I've seen them appear more and more in secular contexts, such as calling someone a "rape apologist" or "slavery apologist." Those people have a rightfully deserved negative reputation because they strain to defend what's clearly indefensible, resorting to all sorts of contortions or outright falsehoods. Perhaps the word for whatever reason has legitimately entered mainstream usage, and people understandably hear the phrase "Christian apologist" and assume that it's someone who acts the same way in regard to Christianity. Their perception has been colored by the other instances in which they've heard the word used.

                            2. Perhaps some people have simply concluded that many of the arguments advanced in Christian apologetics just aren't valid.
                            Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                            I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              As someone who wasn't raised in mainstream Christianity, I didn't "discover" apologetics till probably the turn of this century. Before that discovery (and before my full acceptance of Christ), I assumed that there might be some intellectual basis to this whole Christianity thing, but that it was outside of my reach. The concept of a systematic theology seemed shadowy to me. Something maybe a lot of highfalutin types talked about in their ivory towers. I didn't know anything about the C.S. Lewis' of the Christian faith, much less about popularizers like Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel. But once I encountered the works of folks like J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, and yeah, C.S. Lewis, I came to realize that there was a deeply intellectual level and long historical basis for a reasonable understanding of Christianity. It really turned my world around, and, unfortunately, I bored the hell out of my friends and family who I wanted to talk to about these things non-stop.

                              I was amazed by the richness of the Christian belief system. The concept of a deeply reasoned systematic theology was fascinating to me, and helped answer so many questions I had, and so many questions that my non-believing friends had, but most Christians I know/knew had zero patience for it. Instead they emphasized a very simple faith. One that didn't ask question or seek deep answers. One that was primarily based on personal experiences. Now, I have no problem whatsoever with a faith based on personal experiences, but that seems like the tip of the iceberg to me of a reason based faith.

                              More than that, my friends and family who base their faith on experience are, more than not, actually anti-intellectual. A well-reasoned, systematic theological system is not fully trusted. Apologetics is a dirty word to them because it brings to mind the idea of apologizing for being a Christian. And like I once thought, they think of deeper theology as something left to out of touch eggheads debating how many angels can dance on a pin head in their ivory towers. I sort've given up on these types who simply do not want to hear about the early church, NT scholarship, and natural theology.

                              Lately though, I've been seeing an attack on apologetics from another sector I totally didn't expect. From actual intellectuals. I've run into a number of people I accept as Christian intellectuals (of sorts) that seem to totally distrust Christian apologetics as something ad hoc, and not worthy exploring. Like my anti-intellectual friends and family they seem to have a deep distrust of a reasoned faith, and prefer a definition of faith that's unknowable, and mysterious, and more or less blind. Apologetics is a dirty word.

                              Has anyone else noticed this trend? Anyone want to discuss this issue you if you have?

                              K, that's what this thread is about. Thanks.
                              I think maybe the connotation and reputation of apologetics and some apologists has deteriorated since the advent of the Internet, where egotistical, insecure, argumentative and petty posturing seem to prevail. At least I think that might be part of what's going on.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X