วีดีโอ

Hi! To the first point, apologetics is more about defending hope but the mixup of hope and faith is understandable. And all believers are called to apologetics but the apologetics of the Bible is different from the dialogue and persuasion that we see in modern “apologetics.” As a defense, apologetics is not so much about reaching people but instead takes place when other people are engaging negatively with the Christian hope. I do believe there should be knowledgeable people trying to engage with unbelievers who are willing to engage in critical dialogue, and every Christian should have a deep knowledge of their faith, but only some are called to go out and preach and dialogue in what is called evangelism. So to answer how evangelism deals or strategizes in reaching knowledgeable and critical unbelievers: an evangelist certainly should aim to have answers for any concerns and arguments that may be brought to him, and he should answer arguments insofar as they aren’t sophistry or a red herring to the real issue that Christianity answers. However, the aim in evangelism is not ultimately to coerce or convince by argumentation but to give the good news that God promises to use by His Spirit to make people believe. The good news that the emptiness of this life, death, our desire for evil and our separation from God were all taken by Christ who lived perfectly and died in our place, and because of His perfect life was raised from the dead. He pours out His Spirit on all who believe in Him, reconciling us to God, bridging the gap cause by our evil and by death, and He will resurrect us in our bodies on the last day. What this means for us today is that we are free from sin, death is no longer something to fear, and we can freely love God and love others without fear of punishment.

​@@KolaeClassicoThanks so much for your thoughtful response. Briefly where I am coming from. I believe there to be an absolute source for everything but I do not think it's nature or characteristics can be fully known. I therefore do not consider myself an atheist or materialist and am open to transcendental or supernatural claims. Yet I believe that the Israelite deity and christian god have been harmonized by mostly Platonic philosophy and later theological development. I therefore see the Christian god as a product of human and historical development eventually fitting the needs of primarily educated gentiles interested in a more philosophical god. I.e. Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine, etc. Like wise I see christian ethics as primarily a merge of the hebrew bible's concern for social justice radically combined with apocalyptic literature and expectations. The new testament writers appear to present a Jesus who is primarily concerned with devotion and obedience to god for the next life rather than enjoying success in this current existence. Therefore, absent an expectation of an imminent return of Jesus/Son of Man, I do not think Christian ethics can be realistically or honestly practiced by any significant number of followers. This has led to a wide amount of dismissal, neglect or competing interpretations concerning what "fruit"a follower of Jesus is expected to produce in order to inherit the kingdom. There is much more I can say in my reasoning for rejecting Christianity that are equally important. To conclude for now, I believe christian apologists must first account for several problems: 1. The Israelite and later described christian god do not share the same philosophical attributes such as complete omniscience and perfection. This brings into serious question the accuracy or reliability of what the biblical writers claim to know concerning this being. 2. The expectations of an imminent first century judgement on the known world as anticipated by the first century New testament writers. This did not happen in any recognized way apart from full preterist type interpretations. Historicists and futurists must project later or current ideas into a text written nearly 2000 years ago. 3. The inability for Christians to agree on or establish ethical obligations from the new testament writings that can be considered objective for modern followers beyond perhaps several basic commandments. Again, I appreciate your time.