|
Post by stevekimes on Jan 17, 2011 21:39:24 GMT -8
I don't think that we can "prove" our worldview to others, even as they cannot to us. Most apologetics are only assuring to those who already believe, comforting them that what they believe isn't foolish, but based on reasonable evidence.
However, I don't think "reason", of whatever flavor, convinces anyone of anything that goes against their firmly-held beliefs.
This doesn't mean that a person can't be converted. However, the "evidence" that convinces them would be personal, not intellectual. There are only two things that convinces a person of the truth of Jesus:
a. A life that is sincerely and lovingly lived in Jesus, in close relation with those who do not believe. Over time, they may see that belief in Jesus is the most reasonable way to live, not because of proofs, but because of a sincere and compassionate heart that makes other people's lives better.
b. A personal experience with the Lord. Jesus and the Father are persons, not intellectual property. If I wanted to convince you of the existence of my friend Bill, I wouldn't argue about it, I'd just have you shake his hand. Often the best evidence is the Lord just "shaking the hand" of the unbeliever. Thus, my most common prayer for those who don't believe in the Lord is that the Lord would reveal Himself to them.
I think there is a good place for apologetics, but I don't find it as useful as I did in my early Christian years.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 18, 2011 17:57:36 GMT -8
If I understand you correctly, I think disagree with you on several points. Since you don't know me too well, don't read any hostility in the response, just good ol' friendly disagreement First off, I don't think a good apologist would ever say they are trying to "prove" their "worldview". Rather, they would say they are trying to convince someone else to change their minds on certain things- some things which may lead to eternal consequence. People are convinced to change their minds by reason all the time. I'll warrant it happened to you a couple of times even today. And, yes, the more firmly we hold our views, the harder they will probably be to change, but, this also has happened to you and I at times as well. A child may not want to believe that their cat has died, but unless they are mentally ill, they will come around to that belief after the solid evidence has settled in. A person may not want to believe they are an addict, but when their world comes crashing in around them, they often begin to reason that this is so. This is a false dichotomy- as if evidence cannot be both "personal" and "intellectual". But I'd go further- I don't even think it makes sense to call evidence "personal" or "intellectual". All "convincing" involves the brain, so it's all intellectual. And what do you really mean by "personal" evidence? This is a very strong statement if you think about it. Only two?! Are you absolutely sure? I agree such a life is very convincing. But it's convincing intellectually as well as emotively or intuitively. Plus, by your owns words, you're saying such a life presents "reason" to the skeptic. Again, you're creating a false dichotomy between "personal experience" and "intellectual activity". And also, if a private, subjective revelation was always enough, then Paul would have made that his platform in spreading the faith. The interesting thing is, though, that even though he himself did have a sublimely private personal revelation during his conversion, he rather appealed to reason and evidence more often than personal revelation in attempting to "convince" others of our faith. The fact is that Bill/God isn't always at our beck and call, ready for us to dictate to a skeptic when He'll shake their hand. There is uncertainty to a relationship with God that is often like "working slowly on a mystery" that isn't clear to be seen. I'm not saying don't pray that God would reveal Himself to someone, but keep in mind that the "revealing" takes on many forms. It's not less of a "revealing" if it comes through reason versus intuition or strong emotion. I hope this isn't too much of a sidetrack, but I think it's really relevant here: People can't really be divided up into "the mind" vs. "the heart" or other neat formulas ("emotion" vs. "intellect") because all of these "facets" of our humanity are inextricably intertwined. We are holistic people who need to come to God holistically. That's why we are told to love God with our whole "heart, mind, soul, spirit" and will in Scripture. One implication of this is that in our relationship with God we aren't to shirk on any facet of our existence, but even deeper than that, notice how this exhortation assumes that we don't just love with our heart (like we tend to do in our culture). No, it says we can equally love with our mind and soul/spirit. So, when someone says we come to Jesus with our heart, not our heads, that's just plain wrong. We must come to him with them both (and they only exist as constructs anyway). . I think that the kind of apologetics you describe here is actually precisely the kind of apologetics we need to be most on guard against. If apologetics is merely finding a better way to swallow our own half-chewed food, then it has more change of being detrimental than helpful. Apologetics isn't much good if it does translate to people (including the apologist) changing their minds.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 18, 2011 18:13:06 GMT -8
I'd also like to add that I am aware of many people who have come to Jesus in a way that most would call "intellectual"* at the outset, only manifesting what most would call "personal" later. * some against deeply held biases.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jan 19, 2011 10:07:21 GMT -8
Good response, Josh. I'll come back and respond later.
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 7, 2011 22:34:31 GMT -8
I would like to comment that ultimately it is my belief that the ONLY thing that truly convicts the heart is the holy spirit. You can reach the spirit intellectually but your cannot recognize your own depravity without the conviction of the holy spirit. That is just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Aug 10, 2011 8:16:46 GMT -8
Well, it took me a while, but I'm finally going to respond to Josh's objections.
First of all, I think you aren't understanding my point. I'm not talking about changing one's mind about a certain incident, I'm speaking of conversion-- being convinced that one's approach to reality is wrong and accepting a radically different one. Sure, people can be intellectually convinced that Jesus actually lived and did some miracles, but that won't change their relationship to him or their lives or their idea that they should be in charge of their lives. The goal of evangelism is discipleship, not intellectual jousting matches.
Personal v. intellectual-- Actually, to focus on apologetics is to assume that the Christian faith is about intellectualism. I'm saying that apologetics can be used as a support to a godly life and prayer, but only to prove that we aren't stupid. The problem with apologetics is that it often assumes we can prove Christianity. We can't, because it is something that must be experienced in our lives. When we see others living like Jesus or have God speaking directly to us through the Holy Spirit, then we can be converted. But an intellectual discussion can't do it.
What an intellectual discussion can do is assure our doubts, but it can't make the conversion.
"Personal" is the bigger picture, the full life experience, and that's what we base decisions on. Intellectual items are only one small aspect of that full life experience, even if one is a full time academic. Personal experience changes intellectual beliefs much more than the other way around.
"God is not at our beck and call" Absolutely. That's the point. God will give experience when He so chooses, at our request. This is why I am saying that prayer is so essential. Prayer is not the bending of God's will, but the request that He would choose to act.
For me, the three acts of evangelism is this: a. Acknowledging that Jesus is our Lord b. Acting like Jesus is our Lord c. Praying that others would follow Jesus as their Lord
Part of acting like Jesus is our Lord is answering objections that people have to this kind of life. But that intellectual discussion doesn't convert, only our overall life and the Holy Spirit does that.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 10, 2011 21:18:29 GMT -8
Of course realizing the call to discipleship is more complicated and important than certain daily changes of mind, but I still disagree. God certainly can use reason to demonstrate to us that our approach to reality isn't working and that we need to trust His approach.
Not sure what you mean by "focusing on apologetics". Who is doing that?
I'm not assuming that, as I've said above. And I'll warrant anyone interested in apologetics worth their salt doesn't assume that.
Who says? And why are you assuming that an intellectual discussion can't be one and the same with God speaking to us through the Holy Spirit?
Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit who converts. But I'm saying that He can equally do that work through relationship, experience, feeling, or intellectual discussion. They are all mediums available to Him. I'll warrant He usually uses (and would prefer to use) as many avenues as He can, if we are open to it.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Aug 10, 2011 22:18:55 GMT -8
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this, I suppose.
We do agree on two things: Intellectual discussions aren't enough and the Holy Spirit converts people, not people. So, that's all good.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 12, 2011 17:55:56 GMT -8
I think the value of apologetics is to tear down strongholds in people that prejudge Christianity as intellectually ridiculous without thinking through all the facts. Once that barrier is moved, I believe the next step toward conversion isn't as much of a challenge. If someone becomes a Berean and begins an honest investigation, I don't think they are too far from the Kingdom of God. My first step toward conversion started with an intellectual challenge from Dr. Laura of all people "The truth is, you don't know".
But I think something everyone can agree on is that the Holy Spirit is the one who convicts, calls, and convinces a soul to repentance. Not just a good intellectual argument.
"Convince a man against his will, he'll hold the same opinion still"*
*I don't know who wrote that.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 13, 2011 8:43:16 GMT -8
I am, of course, agreed. But with the caveat that the Holy Spirit is free to use as His medium of conviction or call or convincing:
a) an intellecutal argument b) an intuitive sense c) a miracle d) just about anything else
|
|