Christian Apologetics: Primarily for the Saved

[Someone] pointed out that apologetics rarely persuades non-Christians to become Christians. I agreed, adding that apologetics is primarily for the “saved,” not the “lost.” It serves to assure the faithful that their beliefs are intellectually respectable, despite the apostle Paul’s insistence to the contrary.

Thoughts? I have to say, I agree with this completely. Unless some part of you already believes that the Christian god is or may be real, Christian apologetics arguments are very rarely effective.

I studied apologetics in Bible college, and I was very passionate about it when I was an evangelical fundamentalist Christian. I was unable to see how flawed these arguments were, and how ineffective they were when presented to someone who doesn’t already believe that the Christian God may or does exist. Now, on the other side, I can understand how they appear to non-believers.

Christians: What single apologetics argument do you think is the most accurate/most effective at converting non-believers and why?

Non-Believers: What is the fundamentalist mainstream apologetics argument that you like/dislike/ hear about the most? Do you find it offensive, ridiculous, simply not effective, and why?

Leave a comment!

Keep it respectful, folks. We can and should question and criticize ideas, but NEVER criticise, ridicule, or attack the person holding the ideas. Attacking someone’s character or motives instead of factually answering the argument itself is a logical fallacy and is also very rude. Please also keep in mind that someone challenging your beliefs is not attacking you personally, but rather they are challenging an idea and belief system that you happen to believe in. That goes for everyone. 

(Quote from:

3 thoughts on “Christian Apologetics: Primarily for the Saved

  1. When I hear Christian apologetics I sometimes feel like I’m looking at a wolf in a trap, I want to help but know I’ll get bitten. When I hear Muslim apologetics I wonder if we’ve really been out of the trees as long as we think.

    Hearing either of them tells me I’m listening to someone that is arrogantly ignorant. They are arguing to try to prove something for which there is no evidence. No matter how convinced they feel about it there is no evidence… so they redefine what evidence is. No matter how illogical their stance, they believe that redefining logic or using bad logic defends their belief without evidence – something they would not accept from you if you owed them money.

    Thinking that I’m worthy of eternal punishment because I don’t believe as they do is disgusting to me. Supporting bigotry and hate because their book gives them leeway to do so or demands that they do so is disgusting. Wanting to teach all children their religion, hate, and bigotry in school (let’s not pretend that they don’t want to just because the argument currently centers around science) is disgusting. Telling me they are persecuted is disgusting.

    but hey, that’s just my opinion.

No trolling, please! Genuine dialogue for the purpose of mutual understanding is appreciated; debates are not. General comments are welcome.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s