Skip to content

Podcast: How should we think about apologetics?

DOWNLOAD

SUBSCRIBE

Barry, Nate and I talk apologetics. How do we co-ordinate faith and reason - revelation and philosophy? Our answers are vital if we are going to be faithful to the gospel.

Do get in touch if you have any comments, queries or objections. We'd love to hear from you.

And here's the hilarious Harry Hill take down of Brian Cox. Enjoy...

9 thoughts on “Podcast: How should we think about apologetics?

  1. Dave G-Jones

    Thanks for the helpful discussion - any thoughts on how to answer apologetic-style questions when they get thrown at you by the people you're speaking to?

    I've reconnected with an old friend by email who's heard the gospel loads and asked whether Jesus ever claimed to 'be' God (his words), which has led us into protracted emails about historical questions over whether the Gospels progressively embellish Jesus' claims and whether that's more likely than him really rising from the dead and being God's Son (and we've covered a bit on which God Christians do/don't believe in and how rational we are), which doesn't feel tremendously fruitful, but seems to be the issue preventing him engaging with Jesus at the moment...

    Would/should/do you ever go down those sort of apologetic rabbit trails, or do you just show him round your house and point out how wonderful and beautiful it is until his eyes are opened to see that? Or something else?

  2. Howard Nowlan

    I could only hear the first half of this (couldn't download the rest - not sure why), but what I find often comes up today is the reliability of the accounts of Jesus (the gospels and the new testament) themselves, and the "arguments" of the likes of Dan Brown and Bart Eherman filter into our culture - surely that's where apologetics plays some role?

  3. Dave K

    Enjoyed the podcast, but didn't take a selfie. As I reflected on it I think there may be three different approaches to the relation of evangelism to apologetics.

    1. POSITIVE: "come over to my house, its built on rock" (Acts 17:2-3).
    2. NEGATIVE (DEFENSIVE): I’ll just dismantle that wrecking ball being wielded by Richard Dawkins against our house (2 Cor 10:5).
    3. NEGATIVE (OFFENSIVE): your house is built on sand and it won’t hold up (Acts 17:22-31).

    Really we need all three. What we have to be careful is of going over to the sand, and saying "I'll just build our house here, and it'll look much the same and people won't need to travel as far"

  4. Glen

    Hey Dave G-Jones, Howard and Dave K - thanks so much for commenting. It's been a mad couple of days. I'll get back to you all very soon, and we'll devote our next podcast to your excellent questions / insights.

  5. Dave K

    Thinking some more about 2 Cor 10, I was reflecting that it is not some kind of human reason that we use to demolish strongholds, or arguments, but "weapons" and "divine power", which are described in 2 Cor 6:7.

    ... I'd be interested to hear your thoughts in how you put that all together.

  6. Dave K

    Thinking some more about 2 Cor 10, I was reflecting that it is not some kind of human reason that we use to demolish strongholds, or arguments, but "weapons" and "divine power", which are described in 2 Cor 6:7.

    ... I'd be interested to hear your thoughts in how you put it all together in your podcast.

  7. Howard Nowlan

    Glen, in your latest piece you wrote: "The trouble is, it’s not evidence in general that calls forth faith. In the Bible it is ‘the Word’, ‘the gospel’, ‘the grace of God’, ‘the preaching of the cross’ that causes faith. Faith comes by hearing the word of Christ". Whilst I entirely agree that faith is something generated by and focused upon Christ, when it comes to questions of 'evidence', how does that equate to Paul's argument in Romans 1:19 & 20 or Acts 17:26-28? Surely, Paul is laying out here, in terms of people in general, that there is evidence for God which people generally choose to ignore.

  8. Glen

    Hi all, Our latest podcast on apologetics is up:

    http://revivalmedia.org/2014/10/23/tep74/

    Howard, I think Romans 1 and Acts 17 are making my point. Romans 1 tells us that "evidence" simply isn't our problem. We are surrounded by it constantly and constantly suppress it. So how does Paul proceed? He's not ashamed of the *gospel* for *it* is the power of God for salvation.

    In Acts 17 (which I speak about in the second half of the podcast on this page) Paul takes pains to step back and tell the Biblical story of two men - Adam and Christ. The "proof" to all men is the resurrection of Jesus which Paul simply heralds to them. Notice that Paul doesn't give evidence for the resurrection, he gives the resurrection *as* the conclusive evidence that the Athenians should repent.

    :)

  9. Howard Nowlan

    Thanks, Glen (and thanks also for the latest discussion). I came to the same conclusion after I posted my second query (!), so it's good to know that, yes, there's evidence, but you need to 'hear' Christ to really see it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer