Tag Archive for: Discipline

By Evan Minton 

You’ve just been introduced to Christian Apologetics and have discovered that there are many good arguments and evidence that demonstrate that Christianity is true. However, you’re not sure that you’re smart enough, have enough free time, or have the financial means to learn this material yourself so that you can be a better witness for Christ.

How To Become a Self-Taught Apologist

Can you afford to go to seminary and be trained formally in philosophy and theology? If so, by all means, do that. If you can’t either because you can’t afford it or your current career won’t allow you to go back to school, don’t worry. You don’t have to go to seminary to be a good apologist. Sure, you need letters after your name if you want to read papers at ETS or EPS conferences and if you want your name published in academic journals, but if all your after is the knowledge and the training necessary to win skeptical souls over to Christ, you can do that without ever setting foot on a campus.

I am 100% self-taught in apologetics. Everything you read on my blog, listen to on my podcast, hear in my debates, and see in my social media debates came 100% from reading books, reading blogs, listening to podcasts and lectures, and watching debates. While I would certainly like to have a career in apologetics, as long as I’m winning souls for Christ and equipping my fellow believers, I consider my time as an apologist a success. It may be God’s will for me to just have a blog, write some books, and do a podcast. That’s fine. As long as there will be fewer people in Hell because of the work I’m doing, it is well with my soul. Now, because of my lack of degrees, when I touch upon subjects, I have to heavily cite expert sources and witnesses to back up what I’m saying since I’m not an official authority in these fields. But that’s more of a lesson on how to be, what I call “a credible layman.” I have plans to write an article on that in the future. Right now, I want to give you advice on how to educate yourself so that you can be an effective apologist.

You Are Smart Enough To Learn

First thing’s first. You need to do away with this “I’m not smart enough” mentality that a lot of people have when they encounter apologetics for the first time. I was introduced to apologetics in August of 2010 when I was just 18, but I didn’t put forth the effort to learn the material until the winter of 2011. Why? Because as I watched Lee Strobel’s “The Case for A Creator,” as I listened to William Lane Craig unpack The Kalam Cosmological Argument on YouTube, I thought to myself “This stuff is way too complicated. There’s no way I can remember all of this stuff”. When I would witness to unbelievers and fail to answer their challenges, I would go into my bedroom and pray “God, please send someone like Lee Strobel or William Lane Craig into these peoples’ lives to show them the evidence that you exist, and that Jesus really did die on the cross and rise from the dead.” My game plan was to just preach the gospel, and if anyone brought up hard questions, I’d just pray for God to send a smart person into their path to answer them.

Eventually, God got a hold of me. One day when I was praying for one nasty atheist who badgered me on Twitter when I said: “God, please send them someone to show them the evidence.” I felt God say to me “I want you to show them the evidence. Now, this wasn’t an audible voice, and I’m not one of those “I heard a word from God today that said….” kind of guy. But if God does speak to hearts, that moment was definitely one of them. I was confused. I struggled so much to even unpack The Kalam Cosmological Argument in the most basic way, and I could barely regurgitate design arguments. I thought “God. You’ve got the wrong guy. You need to pick someone with a higher IQ.” The very next day as I was scrolling my Facebook timeline, I saw a picture that was captioned “God doesn’t call the qualified. He qualifies the called.” At the moment, I realized that while I wasn’t qualified to share my faith, I could get qualified.

Below is what I did to get to where I am today.

Rule 1: Consume The Same Material Over and Over

It is said that it takes 1,000 hours to master a craft. Don’t get discouraged if you read a book and only get the gist the first time around. The books I bought, I read dozens and dozens of times. I was determined to hammer that content into my head until I could articulate the arguments as well as the authors could. Several of my oldest Christian Apologetics books are falling apart due to overuse. My copy of William Lane Craig’s On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision is one rugged book. My copy of Hugh Ross’ The Creator and The Cosmos has a broken binder, and some of the pages just fell out! My copy of Frank Turek’s and Norman Geisler’s I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist is likewise falling apart. In fact, when I had Norman Geisler autograph this book at the 2017 National Conference On Christian Apologetics, as Dr. Geisler was signing the book, his wife remarked: “You’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of that book, haven’t you!” My copy of The Case for The Resurrection of Jesus written by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona is likewise falling apart. Neil Mammen’s Who Is Agent X: Proving Science and Logic Show It Is More Rational to Believe That God Exists and all of Lee Strobel’s books are holding up pretty well, but you can see some wear on them as well.

I read these books over and over and over and over until the material was burned into my mind. I did this not only with the books that I read but with the lectures and podcasts I listened to. I would listen to lectures I downloaded from the Apologetics 315 website and listen to them on my MP3 Player while I did housework and yard work. I would listen to the same MP3 files over and over and over.

Rule 2: Focus On One Topic At A Time

You won’t get very far if you bounce from subject to subject. Fix your eyes on one or two particular subjects and pursue that one (or two) subjects into the ground. Once you feel that you’ve got a good grasp on those topics, you can move onto another subject. When I first started, the subjects I pursued into the ground were Natural Theology (i.e. arguments for God’s existence like the Kalam and Fine-Tuning arguments) and the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. After I felt I could defend those arguments decently, I studied soteriology and debated the Calvinism issue with my fellow Christians. Eventually, I moved onto investigating Theistic Evolution and then (finally!) eschatology.

Nowadays I revisit all of these subjects frequently, but when I was first trying to learn them, I focused exclusively on them.

Rule 3: Don’t Learn, Train. 

In his book, Forensic Faith, J. Warner Wallace writes “Stop teaching your young people. We’ve got lots of great teachers in the church and lots of concerned parents who want to teach their kids. We’ve been teaching young people for generations. But this teaching has obviously become ineffective if the current statistics related to the departure rates of young people in their college years are even remotely accurate. We’ve been teaching, and students have been leaving. It’s time to stop teaching and start training.[1] (emphasis in original).

Wallace goes on to say not to get him wrong and that The Bible certainly tells us to teach. Wallace cites 2 Timothy 3:16 which says “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction.” and notes that Paul told Timothy he should use the Scripture to teach, reprove, and correct, but he didn’t stop there. Paul identified another important use for
God’s Word:

2 Timothy 3:16–17

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man
of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

Wallace wrote “Paul made a distinction between teaching and training. It’s time for us to make a distinction as well. We’ve got to understand the role of teaching within the broader context of training. Teaching is focused on imparting knowledge. Training is focused on preparing for a challenge (“equipping” ourselves “for every good work”). Boxers and MMA fighters train. First responders train. Military personnel train. Why? Because they’re eventually going to deploy in the ring, in the fighting cage, on the street, or on the battlefield. These people know they’re going to be challenged and tested. Unless they prepare for this inevitable reality, they’re going to get hurt.”[2]

Wallace goes on to note that when boxers know that showdown is imminent.

They’ve marked it on their calendars. They know exactly when the showdown is going to take place, they train and train hard. They train relentlessly until the night they step into the ring. Wallace mentioned how he did this with witnessing encounters. In one part of the book, he talked about how he and a group of students made plans to go to Utah on a specific date to engage Mormons. The students didn’t know anything about Mormonism and didn’t know any of the challenges they might be met with when trying to share the gospel with them. But Wallace said, “On this day, we will witness to Mormons.” So the whole time leading up to the trip, the students studied and researched and prepared themselves for the encounters they knew were going to occur. Wallace said that when the time arrived, the students did splendidly!

I can speak from personal experience how Calendaring my showdowns helps me become a quick learner. You know those debates you can watch on this site’s “My Debates” page? I trained for each of those debates. I didn’t always have the same amount of prep time, but whatever prep time I had, I put to good use. The one I had the most prep time was my debate with Nathan Reese on “Did Jesus Really Rise from The Dead?” and a debate with a man named Anthony B called “Are There Sound Arguments for God’s Existence” which got canceled. After those two debates, in particular, I found that I could defend the Cosmological and Fine-Tuning Arguments as well as the historicity of the resurrection better than I ever could before that. Calendaring my showdown caused me to train myself to defend these arguments. The pressure leads me to master the subjects faster. Not that I wasn’t good at defending these arguments before (if that were the case, I wouldn’t have agreed to the debates), what I’m saying is that I was twice as skilled after the month of prepping!

In Forensic Faith, J. Warner Wallace gives us a good acronym to go by T.R.A.I.N

T – Test

Challenge each other to expose our weaknesses.

R – Require

Expect more from each other than we sometimes think we can
handle.
A – Arm

Learn the truth and how to articulate it.

I – Involve

Deploy into the battlefield of ideas.

N – Nurture

Tend to our wounds and model the nature of Jesus.

Rule 4: Be Good at Time Management 

You need to learn to use your time wisely. All of us only have 14 hours that we’re awake. Depending on what kind of job you have and what kind of life you lead will depend on how much time you can devote to studying these topics. Now, the one excuse you should not have is “I don’t have time to learn this stuff.” Yes, you do. We all have free time. Maybe some of us have more free time than others, but we all have points in time during the week in which nothing is pressing on us.

The issue is not having enough free time. The issue is what you’re willing to sacrifice in place of what you normally do during your free time. For example, instead of watching 3 hours of television when you get home from work, open up a William Lane Craig or Lee Strobel book (or…an Evan Minton book). Listen to a podcast or watch a debate on YouTube. Instead of spending Sunday afternoon watching football, devote that time to study.

Before I got into studying apologetics, theology, and philosophy, what I did in my free time was watch anime and play video games. That’s how my “Me time” was spent. I have sacrificed those things to a significant degree to become a better ambassador for Christ. Now, I still play video games, and I still watch anime, but I’m not able to do it as much as I would like. Sometimes when I get burned out on studying, I take a little break and do these things in their place. Sometimes I can devote only one hour to a game or a show. This is, in fact, the primary reason why I’m very far behind on many of the shows I like. Instead of spending my evening hours in front of the TV, I spend it in front of an open book. I generally binge my TV shows on the weekends to catch up.

If you’re a trucker and spend most of your time on the road, audiobooks and podcasts are PERFECT for you. You can just plug in your MP3 Player to your truck’s radio and listen and learn while you’re delivering. If your truck is old though, you might need to use a cassette adapter. But, in this case, while you may not have a lot of time for reading, you will have a lot of time for listening. And hopefully, the upcoming Cerebral Faith Podcast will be one of the things you listen to.

I mentioned the trucker vocation because a few of my friends in apologetics do precisely this. If you don’t have time to read, you might have time to listen. And even if you’re not a trucker, you might still be able to listen to podcasts and audiobooks depending on what you do. Janitors are notorious for wearing earphones. If you’re a businessman and do a lot of traveling, your plane flights would be the perfect time for both reading and listening.

If you still have trouble making sufficient time to learn, pray about it. God will help you work out a schedule suited to your lifestyle.

Conclusion 

Hopefully, you find this article helpful. Remember, you won’t learn this stuff overnight. I sure didn’t.

NOTES 

[1] J. Warner Wallace, “Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for A More Reasonable, Evidential Faith” page 87, David C Cook

[2] J. Warner Wallace, “Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for A More Reasonable, Evidential Faith” page 88, David C Cook

 


Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference to The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2rYatjU

By J. Brian Huffling 

A few months ago I wrote a post titled “Why Christian Apologetics Is Not A Discipline.” Dr. Robert Bowman has graciously responded with a blog post titled “Is Apologetics a Discipline?” I appreciate Bowman’s article as it highlights the importance and nature of apologetics. I have been a fan of his for well over decade since I read his and Kenneth Boa’s Faith Has Its Reasons, which is probably the best book on apologetic methodology. I also greatly appreciate his The Word-Faith Controversy: Understanding the Health and Wealth Gospel. I had the chance to Meet Rob a couple of years ago at Southern Evangelical Seminary’s National Conference on Christian Apologetics. He is incredibly friendly and courteous, and I greatly appreciate his work in apologetics.

Is Apologetics A Discipline A Conversation with Robert Bowman

The Importance of Apologetics

My first post on this topic argues that apologetics is not a discipline. Bowman disagrees and argues that it is. Before I respond to Bowman’s post, I would like to be very clear that I am not denigrating apologetics in the least. I went to SES in 2004 to study apologetics and earned a masters degree in that area in 2009 (along with majors in Biblical Studies and Philosophy). I am currently a professor at SES and co-teach Intro to Apologetics with Norman Geisler. I have argued for years that apologetics is needed. Thus, it should be clear that I consider myself an apologist and think that doing apologetics is very important.

I also want to be clear that I do not think that one must be a specialist in order to be an effective apologist. (In my first piece I argued that to be a good apologist one must be a specialist. However, my main point there was aimed at those looking to be professionals. One can certainly be good and effective as a lay apologist; however, I do maintain that there is a risk of being over-simplistic regarding complex issues as a generalist.) Most people who practice apologetics are not professional apologists, meaning that they don’t earn their living that way. Some are, though, and do very well for themselves (although I think there are few). My point in my original post was simply that if one wants to be a professional apologist, especially in academics, then he should be a specialist in a given field. I do argue and believe that pastors and lay people should practice apologetics, and they don’t need to be specialists in order to do so. I have served on several church staffs, and I am currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force. We need people doing apologetics, and most apologists will be bi-vocational or laymen. I am not denigrating general apologetics. It is needed. I do argue, though, that general apologetics is possible because of specialists in other fields who make their information and data available to laymen. Without specialists, there would basically be no apologetics. At least not to the level, there is now.

Response to Bowman’s Article

Having said that, I stand by my original claim that apologetics is not an academic discipline; it is a practice. Let me now respond to Bowman’s post.

After summarizing my overall position, and agreeing “in general,” he makes several points. The first regards the course offerings at SES that are apologetics classes. He lists several types of classes that we offer (world religions and new religious movements, philosophy, biblical studies, etc.), focusing on the scientific classes that are offered as electives and comprise one of our certificate programs. Bowman states:

One problem with the science-related courses at SES of relevance to Huffling’s concern is that they are not intended to enable the student to become proficient in any scientific discipline. There is an apologetics course surveying science-related issues and four courses on “scientific apologetics” instructing students in intelligent design theory and objections to evolutionary theory. By no means am I criticizing these courses; my point is that if Huffling is correct, these courses are inadequate to prepare students to become good apologists. The only subject areas other than apologetics with course offerings sufficiently robust at SES to make students proficient in those areas are biblical studies and philosophy.

As I have already stated, and as Bowman admits, my concerns are really aimed at those who are trying to be full-time or professional apologists. People can certainly have a positive impact with lay-level or general apologetics training. I will say, though, that I do think that without proper training in science it is challenging to rightly understand the scientific issues relating to these topics. Yes, people can study astronomy, chemistry, and the like, and become better apologists. That is why we offer the classes. We want people to take them and learn and hopefully go on to study science at a higher level. But these are not science classes as such; they are apologetics classes. It is hoped that our students will take their knowledge from these classes and apply it to their ministries. (It is probably worth noting that it is the application of these classes to ministries and not academics that is the point of these classes. They are not scientific classes as such, and would probably not transfer to a secular school to replace an actual class on these topics. This is because these classes are not outright science classes, they are apologetics classes from a scientific point of view. They are great classes taught by excellent teachers who are scientists, such a Hugh Ross, but they are not science classes as such. I think this highlights my point that apologetics relies on disciplines for its content, but it is itself simply the application of those disciplines, such as astronomy, to defend the faith.)

Bowman then makes the correct point that “SES has a number of courses in apologetics per se—perhaps more than any other seminary. These include surveys touching on multiple disciplines but also courses on apologetic methods, the history of apologetics, and so on. These courses are not about nothing.” Agreed. In saying that apologetics is not a discipline, but a practice is not to equate it with nothing.

Next, he states, “A pastor or evangelist or missionary who takes a variety of these courses might indeed be well prepared to do their ministry better. Some of Huffling’s critics on Facebook made this point, and I think it is a reasonable one, though it is not directly germane to his concern regarding those seeking to be full-time apologists.” Again, agreed. I have never maintained otherwise, contrary to said Facebookers. As Bowman admits, that was not even relevant to my point in my post as I had in mind those trying to be full-time professionals.

Bowman now comes to his “main disagreement” which is my “assertion that apologetics is not a discipline.” His overall point here is that apologetics is “in the same category as philosophy, which Huffling views as a legitimate discipline.” He states,

In my view, apologetics and philosophy are both second-order disciplines. A first-order discipline concerns subject areas of human knowledge such as the sciences, the arts, and theology. A second-order discipline has as its subject or subjects other disciplines, especially first-order disciplines. For example, in philosophy one is studying philosophy of science, philosophy of language, philosophical ethics, philosophy of religion, philosophical theology, and the like.

It is not clear to me how apologetics is a second order discipline. According to Bowmans’ definition if it were, then it would have as its subject other first-order disciplines. Let’s take history as an example. Is history the subject of apologetics? It seems not, at least not in an exclusive way since other disciplines can as well. But for the sake of argument lets go along with this idea. When apologists use history to defend the faith they usually have in mind the reliability of the Bible or the truth of the resurrection. So then how would apologetics as a second-order discipline have a history as its subject here? It would look at the claims being made such as “The Bible is historically reliable” or “Jesus rose from the dead.” But the only way to proceed would be to compare the claims made with what we know about reality and can prove historically. In other words, the only way the apologist can proceed by using history in his defense is simply to claim that history is on his side. But this doesn’t seem like a second order discipline; it seems like we are simply pointing to what historians say. People point to what historians all the time and are not “doing apologetics.” Or, in the broadest sense, we could say that any historical case made for something is an apologetic for that issue. But this stresses my point that apologetics is the use of a discipline to prove a point, not a discipline in itself. When someone says “X happened in history” it is hard to see how that is itself a discipline other than history.

There are aspects of philosophy that are second order, but that does not mean that philosophy as such is a second order discipline. Bowman states that he comes “down on the side of the analytic tradition in philosophy.” In defining philosophy, he quotes Faith Has Its Reasons, saying, “ the task of philosophy is to clarify the meaning of knowledge claims and to assess the rationality of those claims” (168). Defining philosophy this way makes it easier to view philosophy as a second-order discipline. Those like we at SES who view philosophy from a more systematic approach would not agree that philosophy as such is a second order discipline. We lament philosophy being reduced to mere linguistic analysis or simply assessing the rationality of claims. Such a view relegates philosophy to a fact-checking system. Historically philosophy was more than that, and it still is in many circles. Rather than being a way to analyze statements, answer problems, or demonstrate that something is rational, philosophy has its own unique subject matter. For example, the subject of metaphysics is not something that piggybacks on other disciplines, but rather, is a discipline in itself. No other discipline inquires into the nature of being as such. Metaphysics studies the nature of existence, essences, change, and the like. This is its primary and direct subject matter. The analytic tradition that Bowman espouses rejects the rich traditions in metaphysics and relegates philosophy to mere linguistic analysis. Perhaps Bowman doesn’t mean to do this, but this is indeed the history of the analytic tradition: the rejection of metaphysics and the emptying of philosophy of its rich content. When one understands what analytic philosophy is, it is easy to see why Peter Unger titled his book Empty Ideas: A Critique of Analytic Philosophy. Only if philosophy is merely analytic in this way can it be said to be a second-order discipline.

What about the “philosophy of ___________” areas? Let’s look at philosophy of religion. Again, I would argue that this is its own discipline since it has its own unique subject matter. Philosophy of religion studies God’s existence and nature, miracles, the problem of evil, religious experience, how our language relates to God (religious epistemology, or God-talk), etc. As such, philosophy of religion does not look to another discipline to do this. It has its own unique and well-defined subject matter.

There are areas in philosophy that arise out of analysis of other disciplines, such as the philosophy of math and the philosophy of science. Such fields ask about the nature of such enterprises. However, even in this case, it is clear that each has its own unique and well-defined subject matter. Philosophy of math is not the same as the philosophy of science, for example.

In order to be a discipline of study a field must have its own unique and well-defined subject matter. Philosophy certainly has this, as do the “philosophy of’s.” However, this can’t be said for apologetics since it can have as its subject matter history, archaeology, chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, philosophy, biblical studies, etc. No actual discipline has such a broad area of study. This can only be the case since apologetics requires fields of study, such as history, to defend the Christian faith. Historians practice apologetics when they use historical arguments in defense of the faith. Astronomers do apologetics when they apply their expertise to defending aspects of the faith. The same is said of all of these other disciples from which apologetics is practiced. There is no such thing as “mere apologetics.” Whenever someone tries to defend the faith, he is always doing it by practicing some field of study.

Bowman next claims, “Philosophy and apologetics can even involve the study of one another: much of philosophy of religion examines apologetic arguments for specific religious beliefs, and philosophical apologetics is itself a type of apologetics.” It is not at all clear how apologetics studies philosophy. I am also not clear as to what arguments he is referring to, but I’m assuming theistic proofs for God’s existence, the problem of evil, the nature and possibility of miracles, etc. It seems that he is referring to this when he refers to philosophical apologetics as a type of apologetics. Rather than the philosophy of religion examining apologetic arguments, there are arguments used in defense of our faith that are philosophical in nature. These arguments come from applying philosophy to our faith. Without the philosophy of religion, there would simply be no apologetic arguments in this regard. Philosophical apologetics is nothing more than the application of philosophy to Christianity. Philosophers aren’t examining apologetic arguments; philosophers are making apologetic arguments by applying philosophy to a defense of the faith. This is a one-way street as philosophers can make and examine apologetic arguments, but apologists cannot make and examine philosophical arguments without using philosophy.

Next, Bowman writes, “My point is that philosophy and apologetics are both disciplines in their own right that study how to think about knowledge claims in other, more specific disciplines.” It is not overly clear what Bowman means by “knowledge claims.” Does he mean studying the nature of knowledge and the knowing process? Such would be epistemology. Does he mean seeking to find the truth value of a given claim or testing worldviews? In short, apologetics does not study how to think about knowledge claims. Philosophy studies the nature of knowledge and any discipline can be used to check the veracity of a given proposition that falls in its domain. It is not unique to apologetics, and I don’t think it makes sense to say apologetics does this. Checking a truth claim against reality is not unique to apologetics; it is something that everyone does. Such a claim, if this is what Bowman has in mind, seems to prove too much as then everything would be apologetics.

Finally, Bowman declares, “It is true, as Huffling points out, that most universities and other schools have teaching positions in philosophy but not in apologetics. This fact might be a good pragmatic reason not to pursue a major in apologetics per se if one’s goal is an appointment to a full-time faculty position somewhere. However, it is not a good argument against recognizing apologetics as a discipline.” I agree that this is a pragmatic reason not to major in apologetics if one wants to be an academics. However, it may be a good degree for other reasons. My position that apologetics is not a discipline does not derive from the fact that schools don’t have teaching positions in it. My argument is that apologetics does not have its own unique and well-defined body of knowledge. It uses actual disciplines from which to defend the faith. The fact that schools don’t have positions in apologetics is evidence of my claim but was not my argument for it.

Conclusion

I would like to thank Rob for spending the time interacting with my article. I was surprised he thought it worthy of mention! Apologetics is indeed important, even at the lay-level. We do need generalists, and we need apologetics taught in churches and para-church ministries. However, apologetics relies on the expertise of scholars in well-defined disciplines. This is not a negative quality for apologetics. It is simply how reasoning works. The fact that apologetics is based on specialists and scholars in various fields should give us confidence in our apologetic endeavors. Shouldn’t we want specialists defending the faith and telling us how secure the foundation for our beliefs is rather than relying on generalists? The generalist approach has its merits and appropriate venues, but apologetics as such is secured by specialists who are experts in solid and well-defined disciplines.

 


Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2EjrZ9M