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: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014/11/20/the-motive-of-the-questioner/)

Advertisements