1 Peter 3:15

Andrew said:

I know what you are trying to say--and I agree with your overall point--but the statement above reminds me of when I heard Bill Gothard say "people have not rejected Christ. They have rejected a faulty presentation of Christ."

I don't find where that statement meshes with Scripture. Christ was the "stone that the builders rejected"--and he was the perfect presentation of Himself.

MY STATEMENT WAS MORE QUALIFIED THAN THAT. THE VERSE YOU CITE WAS DIRECTED AT JEWS WHO REJECTED JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.

AS STUDENTS OF THE OT, THEY WERE IN A POSITION TO KNOW BETTER.

NOW, THERE ARE MODERN-DAY UNBELIEVERS IN AN ANALOGOUS SITUATION.

BUT THERE ARE ALSO MANY UNBELIEVERS TODAY WHO COULDN’T EVEN NAME THE FOUR GOSPELS.

AGAIN, MY POINT IS NOT THAT IGNORANCE OF CHRIST IS EXCULPATORY. ONE CAN BE DAMNED MERELY BY BEING A SINNER.

ONE DOESN’T HAVE TO COMMIT THE SIN OF REJECTING CHRIST TO BE DAMNED.

Mathetes said:

Interesting. I've often heard many a Christian refer to 1 Peter 3:15 as obligating all Christians to "do" apologetics (Greg Bahnsen comes to mind). Although that may just be the difference between defending the faith when challenged and taking the initiative - going out there and addressing challenges to the faith.

I THINK WE NEED TO ASK OURSELVES WHAT THIS WOULD HAVE MEANT IN CONTEXT.

WHO ARE THE CHRISTIANS AND WHO ARE THE UNBELIEVERS?

MANY 1C CHRISTIANS HAD NO FORMAL EDUCATION. AND MOST 1C PAGANS HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF CHRISTIANITY.

SO I THINK WHAT PETER HAS IN MIND IS:

1.EXPLAIN THE GOSPEL TO YOUR PAGAN NEIGHBOR, MASTER, &C. TELL THEM WHAT THE CHRISTIAN FAITH IS ALL ABOUT. THE STORY OF SALVATION.

2.TELL THEM YOUR OWN CONVERSION STORY. BEAR WITNESS TO WHAT GOD HAS DONE IN YOUR LIFE.

SO THIS IS A COMBINATION OF SIMPLE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION ALONG WITH THE ARGUMENT FROM RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.

IT’S MUCH MORE ABOUT DEFENSIVE APOLOGETICS THAN OFFENSIVE APOLOGETICS.

THERE’S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GIVING YOUR PERSONAL REASONS FOR WHY YOU’RE A CHRISTIAN, AND ATTEMPTING TO FIND COMMON GROUND WITH THE UNBELIEVER, WHEREBY YOU LEAVE OUT SOME OF YOUR OWN REASONS AND COME UP WITH OTHERS WHICH MAY BE GOOD REASONS, BUT ARE NOT REALLY YOUR OWN REASONS FOR BELIEVING.

IT IS NOT SUGGESTING THAT EVERY CHRSTIAN SHOULD TRY TO DO WHAT WILLIAM LANE CRAIG DOES FOR A LIVING.

NOT EVERY CHRISTIAN HAS THE APTITUDE, EDUCATION, OR LEISURE TIME FOR THAT.

rlf said:

I thought Dan's post was quite powerful and to the point, but I also clearly read into it that there was most definitely a place for the work Triablogue is doing and was quite pleased to follow Dan's link to it in his post. It just gave me another great resource to use. Can't we adopt Paul's attitude in 1 Cor 9 and just use each approach as we are led? And I do recall what Dan went on further to say -- that to use the words he chose "You had better be prepared to give a reasoned defense for the hope you have in Jesus (1 Peter 3;15)." Isn't apologetics just that? And isn't Dan's exhortation to be prepared at least in part a reaction to what Steve described as calling Dan's "bluff?"

REMEMBER THAT I WAS RESPONDING TO TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. WHAT I SAID ABOUT JON IS NOT TRANSFERABLE TO WHAT I SAID ABOUT DAN.


Apologetics is great. It has certainly helped me shore up some of the weaknesses in my defenses and in turn given me the means to respond thoughtfully to objections. But the meat of it for me is that I did not come to faith in Christ through the use of apologetics. I wonder how many do. I came through hearing the word.

IT MAY BE THAT MOST FOLKS DON’T COME TO THE FAITH VIA APOLOGETICS, BUT:

1.MANY PEOPLE STAY AWAY FROM THE FAITH DUE TO THE SORTS OF OBJECTIONS REGULARLY ADDRESSED IN APOLOGETICS.

THERE CAN BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHY I BELIEVE AND WHY I DISBELIEVE.

IN SOME CASES, APOLOGETICS SERVES THE NEGATIVE ROLE OF CLEARING AWAY REASONS TO DISBELIEVE THE GOSPEL, WHILE PREACHING SERVES THE POSITIVE ROLE OF PRESENTING THE OBJECT OF FAITH.

AND APOLOGETICS CAN ALSO SUPPLY SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS, WHICH IS ALSO A POSITIVE ROLE.

2.IT’S NOT ALL ABOUT COMING TO FAITH. SOMEONE CAN COME TO THE FAITH, OR BE RAISED IN THE FAITH, AND THEN HAVE HIS FAITH BATTERED BY ATTACKS ON THE FAITH.

APOLOGETICS HAS MORE THAN ONE POSSIBLE FUNCTION.


Anonymous said:

Its kind of humorous to read these responses. People seem to think that atheists are somehow making a choice to believe, or not to believe.

Its not their choice. No amount of hand waving and deep textual analysis can cause the atheist to simply "believe," that only comes from God, right?

So, why blame the atheist for not believing something he or she is not capable of believing anyway? Why call them "fools" for not believing in God...they CANNOT believe in God unless they get that special touch. Not their fault.

God prevents me from believing. If He wanted me to believe, I would.

SORRY, BUT THIS IS DISINGENUOUS, EVEN DUPLICITOUS, ON YOUR PART.

SINCE YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD, YOU DON’T BELIEVE THAT GOD IS PREVENTING YOU FROM BELIEVING IN HIM.

WHAT YOU’RE TRYING TO DO IS POSE A DILEMMA FOR THE CALVINISM.

YOU SAY THIS FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. BUT THIS IS AN AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT ON YOUR PART.

IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD, THEN YOU CAN’T VERY WELL SAY THAT GOD IS KEEPING YOUR FROM BELIEVING IN HIM.

Anonymous said:

Can anybody make themself believe (in a knowledge way or a saving way) in Jesus? Is it a choice a person makes on their own?

IT ISN’T QUITE THAT SIMPLE:

1.GOD DOESN’T HAVE TO PREVENT ANYONE FROM BELIEVING IN HIM. THEY DISBELIEVE BECAUSE THEY ARE UNREGENERATE SINNERS.

SO IT’S NOT AS IF, LEFT TO THEIR OWN DEVICES, THEY’D BELIEVE IN HIM.

IF A GUNSHOT VICTIM IS WHEELED INTO THE ER WITH A MORTAL WOUND, THE SURGEON DOES HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO KILL HIM.

BY LEAVING HIM ALONE, THE VICTIM WILL DIE ALL BY HIMSELF.

2.THERE’S OFTEN A GOOD DEAL MORE TO UNBELIEF THAN “I CAN’T HELP MYSELF.”

ON THE ONE HAND, UNBELIEVERS OFTEN GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO AVOID CHRISTIANS, AVOID CHURCH, AVOID THE BIBLE.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY OFTEN GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO FIND REASONS TO JUSTIFY THEIR DISBELIEF.

SO IT ISN’T NEARLY AS PASSIVE AS YOU SUGGEST.

3.GOING TO CHURCH, READING THE BIBLE, AND HAVING CHRISTIAN FRIENDS DOESN’T GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL BECOME A BELIEVER.

BUT GOING OUT OF YOUR WAY TO AVOID THESE THINGS PRACTICALLY GUARANTEES THAT YOU WILL NEVER BECOME A BELIEVER.

THERE’S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THINGS THAT NECESSITATE SALVATION, AND THINGS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO SALVATION.

READING THE BIBLE DOESN'T NECESSITATE THE SALVATION OF THE READER, BUT READING THE BIBLE, OR THE EQUIVALENT THEREOF, IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION INASMUCH AS SCRIPTURE SUPPLIES THE OBJECT OF SAVING FAITH—WHAT WE MUST BELIEVE TO BE SAVED.

AS PAUL HELM AS PUT IT:

“A person who is unregenerate, spiritual dead, is able to do many actions without the direct help of the Holy Spirit, actions which are, in the normal course of events, necessary for conversion. For example, a person can read the Bible, listen to sermons, and received advice” Calvin & the Calvinists (Banner of Trust 1982), 60.

Eating doesn’t guarantee that I will live from one day to the next. I might be run over by a bus.

But never eating is a guarantee that I won’t live from one day to the next.

Same thing with spiritual food and drink.