Thank you for the additional perspective.

I struggle with faith vs. philosophy personally as someone who likes it all to add up. I tend to prefer logical conclusions, but I also am not always willing to accpet a case built on layers of logical assumptions. In other words, I like the evidence vs. the argument.

This has plagued me over the years in the following way,
Logic, arguments, logical basis, rationale, philosophy et al, seem to me to have their basis in our mind. Biblically, I do not see where our faith in Christ has any basis in our mind. I have always understood that “eyes to see” and ears to hear” come at the awakening of our spirit through the prompting of the Spirit of God, and our spirit once awakened serves as a conduit for the things of God to our hearts.

Given that pre-disposition, I have always considered my mind an obstacle to greater faith because of my need to know.
Given that, I have tried to suppress my need to know and accept through faith alone.
Given that, (accompanied by the fact that I thought I was right) I have always been eager to challenge the “school of thought” on behalf of the “school of faith.”

If I accept your insight here, it is possible that my mind becomes an enabler as opposed to an obstacle. That is very tempting.

If I use a gardening analogy it might go like this?
For those who have a strong need to know, engaging the school of thought is akin to tilling the soil in the garden. In the spring to accept the seed and regularly once the seed takes root to allow the roots to spread and uproot the any weeds that pop up before they establish themselves.

Am I gettin’ it?

I think that every Jesus-follower has a defense. Some are better than others. Intellectual ability in this area is not essential to faith/belief.

There are many examples of God using apologetics to influence unbelievers towards Christ. I have seen this happen many times in my life.

A good example of contemporary apologetics are the books by Lee Strobel – Case for Christ; Case for Faith, Case for a Creator; and so on. It seems that reading thee books helps many people.

Not all will be so helped by, e.g., Strobel’s books. There are many who would not be able to understand them, even though they are written down to a more common level.

When my son Dan was in Istanbul Campus Crusade for Christ hosted Ravi Zacharias (a well-known Christian scholar-apologist who is an excellent communicator, and who is from India, spoke at a university to several hundred Turkish students.)

Christian apologetics has a long and fruitful history, beginning with Paul speaking in Athens, and quoting the Athenian poets and philosophers in his message. Then on through Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and so on….

If you are interested in contemporay apologetics I suggest starting with the Strobel books. See also William Lane Craig’s website – reasonablefaith.org.

Blessings,

John

How are you doing? I’m well.

#2 has got me thinkin’. I have never associated the debate over the existence of God as necessary, or even relevant to assist, in any way, a believer’s foundation of hope. Before I run away with a misunderstanding of what was intended, let me tell you what these two paragraphs say to me as I read them.

This is what I conclude from your #2:
When Paul wrote that awesome (Holy Spirit inspired) passage, he allows (if not intends) that we, as part of our testimony of the truth of Christ in our lives, would be well served by an ability to demonstrate via argument (as you have defined it), the philosophical logic of the existence of God; and that the cause of Christ could/should/would be advanced by man’s ability to reason such things and lobby on Christ’s behalf (to give the reason for the hope that we have) to a non-believer; lastly that our own faith would be edified by having reached this level of “believing.”

I have to say that I am nowhere close to that so, unless I misunderstand, it sure would be worth the time and the price of 2 cups of coffee to talk this one over.

Thanks John,

Dave

I hugely appreciate an opportunity like that- what a great environment for learning. Much more beneficial than a setting where students/teachers are expected to see eye-to-eye all the time.