The Limits of Apologetics

[Timo (reliquum)]

Truth has nothing to fear.

Truth is those who co-opt “truth” fear losing status quo…

[Timo (reliquum)]

Let’s face it, it can be a bit unsettling when admitting there may not be clear evidence, biblically or scientifically, for reaching grounded conclusions.

I sense the silences of God speak louder than the clamor of men-
and his silence on these things we desperately desire “proof” is likely the perfect test of faith.
Do we trust Love, the God who says He Is love, and His promises, anyway?

I don’t recall that Jesus had any “thus sayeth” grounded conclusions that he would survive his hellish dip below the gates of death.

[niteguy2 (Steve Mga)]

Yes, it is interesting to read about the Theologians of the 1600, 1700, 1800s in
Europe who went trekking and digging among former glacier beds in
Northern Europe, the Alps, in England, Ireland, and looked at strange things
they found that should NOT have been there.
Of course they all knew Latin so could converse by post easily. Some wrote
short books with “pictures”.
But their Bibles had little or no information to give them. THESE Theologians
were the 1st Scientists, later followed by non-theologians from the Secular
Society. Then we had Darwin’s adventure encouraged by his Theologian father.
It was designed by his father to PROVE the Flood. But it just raised more
questions in Darwin’s mind. And it was decades before he felt comfortable
writing about his trip.

[dcread (David Read)]

I’m not open to an atheistic narrative about origins because I have a prior commitment to the truth of Scripture and the prophetic writings of Ellen White. Apologetics do not interfere with my faith, they are a product of my faith. I would suggest to you that the atheistic apologetics embraced by others are a response to their faith position that God did not create the world in six days as taught in Scripture.

[vandieman (jeremy)]

[Apologetics] has an honorable tradition, in Christianity, going back at least as far as the Apostle Paul’s trial in Acts 26. But while apologetics is conceptually legitimate, there are risks. Most crucially, the apologist can assume that which needs to be proved.

i think i’m with david on this one…religion has to be received through faith - as iterated everywhere in the NT - which means there’s an element distinctly unamenable to demonstration, or whatever is meant by apologetics…religionists, then, aren’t generally open to neutral evidence…their concept of truth seeking centres primarily on the successful accrual of more of what they already have…does anyone for one moment believe that the apostle paul was remotely interested in or open to anything that disagreed even slightly with his message, or religion…great religious figures are never uncertain…uncertainty and neutrality are in fact antithetical to faith…

Religionists implicitly, at minimum, want to believe that they are truth-seeking.

not really…religionists explicitly, but also implicitly, believe they already have the truth…if they are seeking, and that’s a substantial if, it’s merely to confirm rather than challenge what they have…they automatically filter out anything that contradicts what through faith they’ve chosen to believe…this means it’s probably a hopeless quest to try to find points of intersection between a religionist and a neutral evidence-based seeker…for the good of all, this fact should probably simply be calmly acknowledged, and accepted…

[timteichman]

I’m not open to an atheistic narrative about origins because I have a prior commitment to the truth of Scripture and the prophetic writings of Ellen White.

Evolution need not be an “atheistic narrative about origins”. Anyone interested in how the world and the universe actually work must look beyond the bible, as it doesn’t exist to explain such things. It’s a collection of ancient religious texts, not a science textbook. Same for Ellen.