Is It Wrong to Try and Argue People into Faith?

[Steven Yeadon]

I am very concerned that Christian apologetics is actually an enormous waste of time, resources, and interest on the part of believers. I say this because the bible makes it very, very obvious in (1 Corinthians 1:18-25) that the Cross is foolishness to the philosophers of this Age. That we do not cleverly argue people into belief in Jesus. I say this because:

1. We cannot argue people into faith as defined by (Hebrews 11:1).
2. We forget and oppose God's purpose to use His weakness to be our eternal salvation to the confounding of the wise and intelligent.

I say this as a student who has spent years studying Christian apologetics and I even went to seminary to learn theology and apologetics. I now look back and wonder what the point was. I will go into my problems with theology in another thread.

That said, is it wrong to try and argue people into faith using philosophical evidence? Or could modern Christianity since C.S. Lewis be making a terrible mistake?

I myself have a personal stake in this game as I am certain I was not saved before I came to Jesus on blind faith for the first time. This happened over a year ago, which was twelve years after my first baptism and so called conversion. My problem had been using the evidence for Jesus to sidetrack and try to cheat having blind faith. Now I view blind faith in Jesus as a virtue instead of as a vice, and my life and me have changed forever.

 

[Sapper Woody]

I don't have the time to formulate an entire answer to your post, so I'll just respond to a part of it. Yes, the cross is foolishness to them. But the Bible also says that the foolishness of preaching is what God uses.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Salty]

Argue - NO
explain/discuss - YES

 

[Reformed]

Steve,

Apologetics is a valuable pursuit. Apologetics is not always about Christianity per se, but it also for specific theological positions. For that reason, it has great value for the Church. I think what you are addressing is Finneyism. Charles Finney was an evangelist who unashamedly preyed on the emotions of his audience to elicit a response to his gospel invitation. I went to a bible college in the Adirondacks that used the Finney model at their stadium events. Play multiple stanzas of "Just as I am" and make a statement like, "If you can't stand for Jesus in a place like this [surronded by Christians] you'll never be able to stand for him anywhere!" That type of evangelism uses emotional persuasion as the means to get people to come forward and "make a decision for Christ". It is dishonest and manipulative. The recidivism rate of those who make such decisions is staggering. That is why that brand of fundamentalism had to invent a new ordinance for the church: the re-dedication ceremony.

Engage with your non-Christian friends. Do not be afraid of biblically based apologetic resources. Employ wisdom to know when to shut off the discussion until next time. Remember that in the end, it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates the soul. His work will never be thwarted by man.

 

[annsni]

I'm with Salty. It is nice to be able to have answers to objections and questions that people have. Think of someone like Lee Strobel who came to know Jesus after fighting with questions he had. Sometimes our own minds and our own sin put up a bit of a road block to faith and God can totally overcome that with just some gentle answers from someone of faith. I've seen it happen. But you are right - arguing does nothing.

 

[Salty]

. But you are right - arguing does nothing.

except get the other person mad......

 

[MennoSota]

I am very concerned that Christian apologetics is actually an enormous waste of time, resources, and interest on the part of believers. I say this because the bible makes it very, very obvious in (1 Corinthians 1:18-25) that the Cross is foolishness to the philosophers of this Age. That we do not cleverly argue people into belief in Jesus. I say this because:

1. We cannot argue people into faith as defined by (Hebrews 11:1).
2. We forget and oppose God's purpose to use His weakness to be our eternal salvation to the confounding of the wise and intelligent.

I say this as a student who has spent years studying Christian apologetics and I even went to seminary to learn theology and apologetics. I now look back and wonder what the point was. I will go into my problems with theology in another thread.

That said, is it wrong to try and argue people into faith using philosophical evidence? Or could modern Christianity since C.S. Lewis be making a terrible mistake?

I myself have a personal stake in this game as I am certain I was not saved before I came to Jesus on blind faith for the first time. This happened over a year ago, which was twelve years after my first baptism and so called conversion. My problem had been using the evidence for Jesus to sidetrack and try to cheat having blind faith. Now I view blind faith in Jesus as a virtue instead of as a vice, and my life and me have changed forever.

Read Nabeel Qureshi's book, "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus", then get back to me.
Read the book of "The Acts of the Apostles" then get back to me.

 

[annsni]

Read Nabeel Qureshi's book, "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus", then get back to me.
Read the book of "The Acts of the Apostles" then get back to me.

I haven't read the first one but I have read the second. I'm maybe seeing something different than you are. I don't see a problem at all with answering questions and "arguments" but I do see a problem with "arguing". I see arguing as bringing in harsh tone, harsh words and demeaning language. I see answering questions as being kind, patient, discussing with wisdom. I disagree with the first but very much agree with the second.

 

[MennoSota]

I haven't read the first one but I have read the second. I'm maybe seeing something different than you are. I don't see a problem at all with answering questions and "arguments" but I do see a problem with "arguing". I see arguing as bringing in harsh tone, harsh words and demeaning language. I see answering questions as being kind, patient, discussing with wisdom. I disagree with the first but very much agree with the second.

When confronted by an aggressor do you refuse to stand firm or do you allow them to denigrate your King?

There is a point where you " dust off your sandals" and walk away. The question is...when?

If I am responding out of anger, then it's best to stop. If I am rightly standing up for my King, even though the opponent is angry, then I push the point.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Read Nabeel Qureshi's book, "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus", then get back to me.

I'm looking into this book. Thank you, it looks like it will help me greatly in some other areas.

Maybe I missed something important about apologetics given the Bereans and Athens. Paul taught about the Gospel in targeted ways for various cultures throughout the Roman world, even in places of worship. He had to explain himself and show from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ to the Jews, and in Athens he is clever in his presentation to pagans.

So the mind is very much needed to evangelize.

I have also had a powerful personal experience where simply answering questions from an unbeliever helped them think about going back to church.

Now I guess I can get to the heart of the matter a little more easily. The problem I encounter is that Christian apologetics can do two things I find unbiblical:

1. Reason people into accepting the Gospel. (something the bible says is impossible, and something I did for years with the peril of hell fires since when tests of faith came, I turned away)
2. Debate with unbelievers, especially atheists, about the reasonableness of the faith. (something akin to arguing with people. It is also something that is usually aimed at people the bible tells us are fools who will simply storm and rage at being corrected)

Here some verses on fools in the bibles. One definition of fool being people who don't believe in God (Psalms 14:1) .

What Does the Bible Say About Fool?

I wonder if we are barking up the wrong tree with secularists by using Christian apologetics with them, as these verses paint a dreary picture of reasoning with such people. Maybe we need another method for secularists?

 

[MennoSota]

I'm looking into this book. Thank you, it looks like it will help me greatly in some other areas.

Maybe I missed something important about apologetics given the Bereans and Athens. Paul taught about the Gospel in targeted ways for various cultures throughout the Roman world, even in places of worship. He had to explain himself and show from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ to the Jews, and in Athens he is clever in his presentation to pagans.

So the mind is very much needed to evangelize.

I have also had a powerful personal experience where simply answering questions from an unbeliever helped them think about going back to church.

Now I guess I can get to the heart of the matter a little more easily. The problem I encounter is that Christian apologetics can do two things I find unbiblical:

1. Reason people into accepting the Gospel. (something the bible says is impossible, and something I did for years with the peril of hell fires since when tests of faith came, I turned away)
2. Debate with unbelievers, especially atheists, about the reasonableness of the faith. (something akin to arguing with people. It is also something that is usually aimed at people the bible tells us are fools who will simply storm and rage at being corrected)

Here some verses on fools in the bibles. One definition of fool being people who don't believe in God (Psalm 14:1).

What Does the Bible Say About Fool?

I wonder if we are barking up the wrong tree with secularists by using Christian apologetics with them, as these verses paint a dreary picture of reasoning with such people. Maybe we need another method for secularists?

I think we have to look at our presuppositions.
For me, I recognize that God is the only one who can save a person. God is the one who chooses to adopt a person as His child (Ephesians 1:4-5). Therefore, no amount of discussion will convince a person for whom God has not chosen to adopt. We are responsible to preach the gospel so that those whom God chooses to adopt will respond. We are responsible, as God's ambassadors, to present the message of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5).
The message of reconciliation requires apologetics mainly because many in our society do not think they need reconciliation with God. They look at the scales and think their good deeds outweigh their bad deeds. Apologetics reveals to them that they are rebels in need of reconciliation.
Only God knows whom He will adopt. He also knows the list (chosen from before the foundation of the world) of whom He will adopt. We cannot thwart God, no matters how badly we screw up a presentation. That should ease our fears. At the same time, we should be cognizant to always speak in love.
We will give account to our King for our own actions. But, we cannot thwart Him from bringing his adopted children home.
That is my presupposition and it takes away my fear of screwing up.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Thanks all of you. Your responses lead me to try and understand that tone is a very important thing in evangelism, which is really what we are talking about at base I now realize.

I used to forcefully argue with atheists using apologetical talking points. I thought I was being a true, historical apologist. I see now that gentleness and kindness along with other fruit of the Spirit are needed in evangelism as well as wisdom. Thank you all for that.

I guess this goes to one more important point: You guys talk of discussing and explaining the Gospel in what I'll call a considerate and sincere way using wisdom. That seems totally in line with the bible. As far as I can tell, it is how the evangelists spread the Gospel in Acts. They also used various styles of delivery from open air preaching to individual teaching and correction to spread the Gospel in the way that would work best.

So I see that apologetics can serve a real purpose in the church on several levels, including explaining the faith in a targeted way and teaching Believers about the faith from new angles.

I'll need to look into Lee Strobel and other cases of people wrestling with their own personal conclusions and wrestling with the questions of the faith. People who were won over in the end. I still lack any understanding of what they did right that I did wrong back in the day.

MennoSota, I understand your point, but I am biblically stuck honestly as far as the free will vs. double predestination debate goes as I see verses that support both positions. But that is not really for discussion in this particular forum I guess. I'll have to pay a visit to the debate forum on this topic.

So, I'll list my current quandaries and we'll get back to discussing things:

1. Can we reason people into accepting the Gospel?
2. Should we debate with atheists, fools, about the reasonableness of the faith?
3. Should we attack other religions with our own criticisms and questions?

These questions strike me as possibly unbiblical approaches to evangelism, but they are also the kind of stuff I most often find in professional apologetics books.

 

[Van]

I am very concerned that Christian apologetics is actually an enormous waste of time, resources, and interest on the part of believers. I say this because the bible makes it very, very obvious in (1 Corinthians 1:18-25) that the Cross is foolishness to the philosophers of this Age. That we do not cleverly argue people into belief in Jesus. I say this because:

1. We cannot argue people into faith as defined by (Hebrews 11:1).
2. We forget and oppose God's purpose to use His weakness to be our eternal salvation to the confounding of the wise and intelligent.

I say this as a student who has spent years studying Christian apologetics and I even went to seminary to learn theology and apologetics. I now look back and wonder what the point was. I will go into my problems with theology in another thread.

That said, is it wrong to try and argue people into faith using philosophical evidence? Or could modern Christianity since C.S. Lewis be making a terrible mistake?

I myself have a personal stake in this game as I am certain I was not saved before I came to Jesus on blind faith for the first time. This happened over a year ago, which was twelve years after my first baptism and so called conversion. My problem had been using the evidence for Jesus to sidetrack and try to cheat having blind faith. Now I view blind faith in Jesus as a virtue instead of as a vice, and my life and me have changed forever.

Lets go over these assertions one at a time:

1) We cannot "argue" people into faith. Paul indicated we should present the gospel and endeavor to "win" some for Christ. We are to plant the seed and to water and to till the ground.

2) God does not say we should present the gospel with weakness, no we are to be bold.

It is true we are to make a persuasive argument for trusting in Jesus, but not at the expense of the truth about sharing in Christ's suffering and persecution.

Last point, blind faith. I grew up in a Christian family, went to Sunday School from an early age. I always believed in God and Jesus. My problem is that I thought I would be such a wretched worthless Christian that I should hide my faith under a basket so that my testimony would not hinder the ministry of Christ. So when I put my life in Christ's hands, it was with blind faith that somehow I could live it in a way worthy of my calling.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am very concerned that Christian apologetics is actually an enormous waste of time, resources, and interest on the part of believers. I say this because the bible makes it very, very obvious in (1 Corinthians 1:18-25) that the Cross is foolishness to the philosophers of this Age. That we do not cleverly argue people into belief in Jesus. I say this because:

1. We cannot argue people into faith as defined by (Hebrews 11:1).
2. We forget and oppose God's purpose to use His weakness to be our eternal salvation to the confounding of the wise and intelligent.

I say this as a student who has spent years studying Christian apologetics and I even went to seminary to learn theology and apologetics. I now look back and wonder what the point was. I will go into my problems with theology in another thread.

That said, is it wrong to try and argue people into faith using philosophical evidence? Or could modern Christianity since C.S. Lewis be making a terrible mistake?

I myself have a personal stake in this game as I am certain I was not saved before I came to Jesus on blind faith for the first time. This happened over a year ago, which was twelve years after my first baptism and so called conversion. My problem had been using the evidence for Jesus to sidetrack and try to cheat having blind faith. Now I view blind faith in Jesus as a virtue instead of as a vice, and my life and me have changed forever.

It is a useful tool that God uses, but the bottom lime is still that still regardless if use the scriptures, or proofs, that the Holy Spirit Himself uses them to save sinners!

 

[FollowTheWay]

I think the most powerful way to evangelize is to live the Christian life. Use Jesus as your example. If necessary say a few words. When you develop a relationship with someone else and show them you love them as someone who is precious and worthy of respect many times they will ask you: What's different about you? Then slowly you can enter into a conversation about how important following Jesus has been in your life and give them some examples. Certainly arguing never works nor does rational discussion. People respond when they realize you are not merely trying to put another notch on you "people I've saved" belt but are genuinely interested in helping them find the meaning and peace that your faith has given you.

 

[annsni]

When confronted by an aggressor do you refuse to stand firm or do you allow them to denigrate your King?

I stand firm but if they get aggressive, I explain that I cannot have a conversation with someone who is getting angry and aggressive and if they would like to dialogue, I'm happy to but if they are going to be abusive, we will have to walk away for now and let ourselves cool off.

There is a point where you " dust off your sandals" and walk away. The question is...when?

With wisdom, you know the conversation is going no where. Better to say "Let's continue this tomorrow when we've had time to sleep on this" than to end up having the other person walk away and say "See? She got really angry. Lot of good the god of hers is!"

If I am responding out of anger, then it's best to stop. If I am rightly standing up for my King, even though the opponent is angry, then I push the point.

I think what you are saying is right - to a point. If the opponent is angry, they do not hear what you are saying. I've found that even in my marriage or with my children. Sometimes it is best to walk away and then try again at another time when cooler heads might prevail.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

I think the most powerful way to evangelize is to live the Christian life. Use Jesus as your example. If necessary say a few words. When you develop a relationship with someone else and show them you love them as someone who is precious and worthy of respect many times they will ask you: What's different about you? Then slowly you can enter into a conversation about how important following Jesus has been in your life and give them some examples. Certainly arguing never works nor does rational discussion. People respond when they realize you are not merely trying to put another notch on you "people I've saved" belt but are genuinely interested in helping them find the meaning and peace that your faith has given you.

I realize that these three I am struggling with would make no sense to your perspective, which makes me think:

1. Reason people into accepting the Gospel.
2. Debate with atheists about the reasonableness of the faith.
3. Attack other religions with our own criticisms and questions.

Perhaps number 2) makes sense as "discuss with unbelievers the questions they have on the faith" with no clear objective to debate or reason people into accepting the Gospel.

Problem is, is that still modern apologetics? Or are we into different territory?

 

[MennoSota]

1. Can we reason people into accepting the Gospel?

No. God alone speaks to the human and makes them alive in Christ. We cannot expect our reasoning to make them alive in Christ (Ephesians 2:1-10).

2. Should we debate with atheists, fools, about the reasonableness of the faith?

No one should argue with a fool, but not all atheists are fools. Some have honestly concluded the same thing that Solomon concludes in Ecclesiastes, which is...everything is meaningless. From a presupposition that God doesn't exist, Nietzche was correct. Nihilism is all one can conclude.
However, this is why we debate with others we do so to knock the crutch of their presupposition out from under their feet so that they might be brought to utter despair and perhaps God might reach out and graciously keep them from dropping into hell (like God did for you and me).

3. Should we attack other religions with our own criticisms and questions?

No need for attack, but we must march forward because the gates of hell cannot stand against the forces of God Almighty. We must point out the critical flaws in their crutch by questioning their presuppositions and comparing/contrasting their worldview with ours.
God tells us to study to show ourselves approved, to be ready to give account for the faith that is within us. We should strive to know God and be excellent in everything we do to the glory of God.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

As I was thinking about your answers and doing more research, I found this statement by Norman Geisler, which sums up the quandary I still have about apologetics:

As Norman Geisler says, “This does not mean there is no room for faith. But God wants us to take a step of faith in the light of evidence, rather than to leap in the dark.”
Does the Bible call Christians to defend the faith / argue for the faith?

Is this statement true? I know that the evidence I have for the faith from receiving three miracles when I prayed for them in 2004 increases my faith radically. However, it seems that the faith I have is still blind faith in Jesus and the Father instead of other gods.Faith that is added to by reason, but not faith that is given or made feasable by reason.

What say you all?

 

[Van]

You need to think about what you mean by "faith." Is "the faith" a set of core assertions (i.e. Trinity, Jesus is God, etc) or is it your individual embrace of those assertions?

Does the Bible call for us to "defend the faith?"

Acts 14:22
strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.”

1 Corinthians 16:13
Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.

And then of course we have those who are "in the faith." Does this refer to those who have been spiritually baptized into the body of Christ (Faith) or simply to those advocating the pure gospel and not some adulteration of it?