Thesis: While the defense of the Christian faith may serve to remove common objections, it cannot create faith, properly the work of the Spirit through the Word.
Any objection to faith is overcome by the Spirit through his chosen instruments, Word and water.
Therefore Christian apologetics seeks to destroy objections to the faith firstly for the Christian, to bring reason in conformity with faith.
The scandal of faith is that Christians believe something so contrary to reason. Christian apologetics demonstrates that it’s not entirely unreasonable but is the only faith grounded in history and makes precise truth claims.
Incomplete Thoughts for the day. What think ye?
Related posts:
- chaz_lehmann: “Muslim” Lutherans chaz_lehmann: "Muslim" Lutherans In my 36 years as a Lutheran...
- Masters Thesis Ideas? Theologians and all, I’m mulling over the class offerings for...
- Movies: Are they Really Devil Spawn? Lutheran Logomaniac | Movies: Are they Really Devil Spawn? There’s...
- Christian Unity With regard to Christian unity it must be emphatically stated...
- More on reason and theism Continuing our discussion on using reason in matters of...
The last sentence is not clear, and unfortunately I think it’s supposed to be the sentence defending/defining the value of apologetics.
If the scandalous (and I would say an essential) aspect of faith is that it is so frequently contrary to reason, that doesn’t speak highly of the value of an enterprise devoted to bringing reason in conformity to it (to faith). The power of the Christian faith, as you pointed out, is the Spirit’s work through His chosen means. It is not the faith’s partial unreasonableness, historical grounding, or precision in claims. It’s still not clear to me how the apologetic enterprise is anything beyond an interesting side-show. It does not belong to the Gospel, and I sometimes wonder if it is truly Law. (If it were Law, it has to do with the tearing down and exposing of men’s unbelief and hatred toward God. You seem to be crediting that to the Spirit’s work in the means of the Word and Water, not to apologetics.) Thoughts?
Yes, the logic is faulty. I was struggling to organize my thoughts with the miniature thumb keyboard on the iPhone. The final paragraph is paradoxical.
You express the conclusion that I and others have reached as we struggle to understand the proper role of apologetics both historically and contemporaneously. I would not call it an interesting side-show, as apologia, like it or not, holds a high place in the Christian witness for Paul. I agree (for the moment) that the best expression of “making a defense” is precisely in the realm of the law. Even the most staunch apologists in our circles won’t give it the credit that faith is due. We’ve discussed this before with the expression of bringing one to the front door of faith as a full-blooded Arminian.
The JW Montgomery crowd demonstrates their role as harmonious with creating ascentia through reasonable defense, in contrast with fiducia. As such it has nothing to do with the Gospel but is merely preparatory. For the unbeliever, this so-called “breaking down of walls” is typically through natural law and various philosophical arguments. Whether they believe a lick of it is another story.
My post intended to deal with the other side of the equation, that is, the role of apologetics for the believer. Perhaps one ought to make a distinction between regenerate and unregenerate reason. Maybe not. Either way, being prepared to make a defense seems to have value for the apologist too. As long as he remains in sin, Satan’s lies can draw him away from fiducia. I have here in mind the radical Atheist crowd or generic universalists. Societal pressures may be at their core illogical but people seem to be persuaded by the ethic of our day. Here apologetics can serve some value to defend against the enemy’s attack via argument or lie.
Still, that being said, the role is still part of the daily dying to sin and thus, law. I don’t have any problem learning how to destroy faulty propositions. As you know, skillful law preaching is hard to come by, myself included. Too often I fall into moralism or generic application, rather than the precise use of the scalpel or hammer. Being able to see to the heart of the matter is one area where philosophy (and apologetics) can teach us something.
My Sunday ramble. Someday I will study ascentia in a bit more detail in the Lutheran fathers.
An interesting consequence of this comes to mind. If apologetics is properly law, then its aim is reveal to man his sin, blindness, misery, wickedness, ignorance, hate, and contempt of God, death, hell, judgement, and wrath (al a Luther). How often do Christian apologetes destroy a person’s attempt at righteousness?
That would be too negative, eh?
Pr. Salemink, I agree. Part of the error of the original post is considering apologetics apart from evangelism, counterparts to law/gospel. I think the real point here is that so many Christians have the Law wrong, and the law is entirely logical. Righteousness by works is as intuitive as it gets. Apologetics takes the veil off of weak-toothed naturalistic law and shows our condition for what it really is. Oh wait, that sounds like law preaching. Go figure. Go go bulldozer.
What do you think about presuppositional apologetics then? If done right, it seems to be taking the ax of the Law to the root of their worldview, exposing it and them for what they are, while at the same time proclaiming Christ and what He has done. But since being lutheran I have only heard caricatures and negative things about presuppositional apologetics.
My only exposure is via Francisco and Montgomery. Both reject it as sophistry. I'm convinced that Paul used a natural law evidentiary method for the Gentiles. In theory, it works for me.In the end, I like discussing the theory of all this since it keeps me in my Lutheran ghetto.
see, but here's the thing: the apologetic task rarely happens apart from or even prior to the kerygmatic one…it's like prayer – proper Christian prayer is informed by the Word and thus, while prayer itself is not a means of grace properly speaking, the Word proclaimed in the form of prayer is…so, because most apologetics is "messy," that is, includes proclamation of the Gospel in, with, and under defense of it, there's probably no need to be up in arms about apologetics…the proclamation of a reasonable, historically-grounded faith goes all the way back to the apostles themselves on pentecost
apologetics isn't evangelism. that should be clear.Christanity isn't nonsense, it just doesn't make sense to our way of thinking. Christianity has never been about forsaking reason and embracing illogical, nonsensical things. Faith is not the embracing of nonsensical ideas.And if what the Bible says is true, why would it NOT make sense (for example, if the Bible isn't lying about anything, it would make sense that historical data backs up what it says – for example that Isaiah actually wrote messianic prophecies centuries before Christ was born). If it's true, it's not going be muddled in riddles and nonsense like other religions are.But these things knock down barriers, they don't create faith. Apologetics is a tool, it's a tool that serves a specific purpose. You don't use a bulldozer to build a house, but you do use it to clear the property so that you can pour a new foundation.