Wow, the number of folks who think we don't need to provide a reply for the hope within is pretty stunning.
I was thinking the same thing.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wow, the number of folks who think we don't need to provide a reply for the hope within is pretty stunning.
Is there biblical reference for not initiating conversation with unbelievers or for refraining from responding to such questions?
It seems to me that the “problem of evil” is a legitimate question, and perhaps one of the larger ones for which apologetics must answer (at least in regards to atheism and secular humanism).
However, the questions asked by the friend of the OP were not asking legitimate questions but seeking excuse for a chosen lifestyle.
There is no mandate to "debate" with unbelievers but to present the gospel.
Why?
What answer could actually convince the unregenerate of the truth when the initial reason for asking the questions is not a legitimate search?
If the question was not legitimately asked, then I agree with you. It would be fruitless.
No answer can persuade one to salvation. The role of apologetics is not to talk someone into accepting Christ, but rather to provide an answer for our faith (1 Peter 3:15). Perhaps the Spirit will use an answer to remove preconceived error, or perhaps the answer will serve to put the enemies of Christ to shame (v. 16). These verses do, however, present defending the faith as more apologetics than simply presenting the gospel. It is not biblical to simply present the gospel and leave objections to the faith unaddressed.
The reason that I say the “problem of evil” is a legitimate question is because it exists not only as an objection on behalf of the unregenerate, but also as a question among the saved. Salvation is of faith, but faith is not blind. The Bible is God’s revelation to man, and the doctrines contained therein are worthy of study and exploration. It would be an error to dismiss Scriptural doctrine simply because we want to keep things faith based and experiential.
If your presupposition is correct, and the young man who asked the question is not asking or rebelling out of conviction but is instead simply being hostile to Christianity, then it would be a fruitless debate. Of course, if he is struggling and trying to support his anti-Christian view because God is moving him to a change, then perhaps 1 Peter is not so irrelevant. Personally, I would tend to side with you – but I am also somewhat cynical in nature (something I need to work on).
This is an excellent perspective and has caused me to reconsider my view.
If, in fact the person is legitimately considering the merits, then a response by presenting the Gospel is appropriate.
I think that when Paul stood and attempted to persuade Agrippa it is an example that such discussion should take place when obliged by legitimacy.
No answer can persuade one to salvation. The role of apologetics is not to talk someone into accepting Christ, but rather to provide an answer for our faith (1 Peter 3:15).