Apologetics

[Evfimy]

I want to clarify that I actually agree with you Josiah. I don't recommend people read non-Orthodox material by heretics.

But when it comes to defending the faith, I think we should take the good from them wherever we can find it. Many protestant apologists have really specialized in certain key elements in apologetics. What I do is take their research and use it for the glory of Orthodoxy. Because the truths they do have, is actually a residual glory of the Orthodoxy they have maintaned. They are ultimately OUR truths.

It is always good to use caution when reading anything non-Orthodox.

[joasia]

Efvimy wrote:

God's grace moved me and you to join the flock of His true sheep in Orthodoxy.

I came to Orthodoxy after a few years of reading Orthodox material, EXCLUSIVELY. I came to Orthodoxy because I was searching the full truth. And when I saw it, in Orthodoxy, by the Grace of God, I dropped anything papal and pursued the writings of the holy fathers of the True Church.

The books you list are about explaining who Jesus Christ is and what He's about, from their Protestant view. They have no spiritual depth. The holy father's writings are filled with the Grace of the Holy Spirit, so that when we read them, it enters our hearts. You can't say the same thing about secular writers who live outside the Living Church.

What can they offer that has not been expressed by the holy fathers, when it comes to the spiritual understanding of God?

But, to answer Pravo's question...yes, I see that science, archeology, history, that is presented with honesty and is not a form of preaching the heretical beliefs can provide important imperical information. Even movies like Moses, Ben Hur, and other Biblical movies made back then, can be inspirational.

But, my point is that they donot sustain, but a soul thirsts for more and seeks deeper material sources. We have to move on.

Last year, a friend of mine gave me DVD's of Kent Hovind. His presentation seemed quite scientific( - like I know anything about science - NOT) and he had a delightful personality(it was fun watching him speak). I omitted his Baptist preachings on the last DVD. He seemed to have made much stride in contridicting his opponents who are hardcore evolutionists. He was a great advicate against teaching evolution in the schools. I found his explanation of the ice age, the flood and dinosaurs, very interesting, but was he right? He referenced alot of passages in the Old Testament. I don't know.

I wanted to get the teachings of St. John Chrysostom on Genesis, but I couldn't find any books that were in print; even used. So, I couldn't make a comparison to the Orthodox teachings to see if Kent taught incorrectly, even about the scientific issues(to those who think that the saints didn't talk about science).

I did read Fr. Seraphim Rose's article though of Genesis and Early Man.

Kent's arguements seemed strong and I even watched videos on Youtube. I even saw those who criticized him. I could tell that they were really reaching.

But, he didn't know anything about the true theology of God. Even his preachings of salvation were wrong...and that is the most important point to know....in truth, NOT partial truths.

Can somebody be partially saved?

I'm not trying to start an arguement with my responses, I'm just expressing my view.

[Evfimy]

I came to Orthodoxy after a few years of reading Orthodox material, EXCLUSIVELY. I came to Orthodoxy because I was searching the full truth. And when I saw it, in Orthodoxy, by the Grace of God, I dropped anything papal and pursued the writings of the holy fathers of the True Church.

Not everyone has the same story and background as you or myself. Since you were previously reading papal material, you already had a understanding of the essentials of the faith (diety of Christ, His resurrection from the dead, virgin birth, etc). Many people don't even have that.

The books you list are about explaining who Jesus Christ is and what He's about, from their Protestant view.

I don't think you're hearing me. The books do not promote protestants dogma's. They promote TRUTHS of the faith, such as:

Jesus is God

Jesus rose from the dead in His own body

Gnosticism is false

God exists

Christianity did not borrow from paganism

The Bible (and New Testament) is reliable

etc, etc.

What in light of the above do you object to?

They have no spiritual depth.

You have not even read one of them. How could you possibly know that?

The holy father's writings are filled with the Grace of the Holy Spirit, so that when we read them, it enters our hearts. You can't say the same thing about secular writers who live outside the Living Church.

Some of the issues being raised today by secularists are not addressed by the Holy Fathers. For example, there is a fringe movement out there by certain atheists and Gnostics called the "mythicists." They deny that Jesus Christ even lived. The Holy Father's do not deal with that issue because it was not even raised untill around the 17th century. As far as I know, no Orthodox have written any modern apologetic against the mythicist hypothesis.

What can they offer that has not been expressed by the holy fathers, when it comes to the spiritual understanding of God?

The Holy Father's did not deal with the "mythicists." They did not deal with evolution or the current discoveries of science and intelligent design that support creationism, etc. They dealt with the heresies of their own day. There are knew heresies today in the world.

But, to answer Pravo's question...yes, I see that science, archeology, history, that is presented with honesty and is not a form of preaching the heretical beliefs can provide important imperical information.

The apologetics and books I listed do not preach heretical beliefs.

Even movies like Moses, Ben Hur, and other Biblical movies made back then, can be inspirational.

My point exactly.

But, my point is that they donot sustain, but a soul thirsts for more and seeks deeper material sources. We have to move on. Last year, a friend of mine gave me DVD's of Kent Hovind. His presentation seemed quite scientific( - like I know anything about science - NOT) and he had a delightful personality(it was fun watching him speak). I omitted his Baptist preachings on the last DVD. He seemed to have made much stride in contridicting his opponents who are hardcore evolutionists. He was a great advicate against teaching evolution in the schools. I found his explanation of the ice age, the flood and dinosaurs, very interesting, but was he right? He referenced alot of passages in the Old Testament. I don't know.

Yes he was right. He is a creationist and young earth scientist. This is what I'm talking about.

But, he didn't know anything about the true theology of God. Even his preachings of salvation were wrong...and that is the most important point to know....in truth, NOT partial truths.

That's not his purpose. His mission is to debunk evolution and bring glory back to the Creator. God will do the rest.

THE BIBLE TELLS US TO PLANT THE SEEDS

Saint Paul told us to be ready always to give an answer (apologia) to everyone who asks us a reason for the faith that we have (1Pet.3:15).

If someone asked you why you believed in Jesus' resurrection, what would you tell them?

Let me give you an example of the kind of apologetics I'm talking about. Gary Habermas has written a book on Jesus' resurrection. Habermas' is considered by many to be the world's foremost expert on the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. He has read everything written on the historical Jesus and His resurrection by critics, liberals, and conservatives since 1975 to the present in English, French and German. He has come up with what he calls five "minimal facts" (4+1) regarding Jesus' death that are accepted by all scholars who write on this subject. A "minimal fact" is something that is strongly supported by the evidence, and is accepted by the majority of scholars. These facts include:

1. Jesus died by crucifiction

2. The disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead

3. The Church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed

4. The skeptic James was suddenly changed

5. Christ's tomb was found empty (accepted by 75% of these scholars).

Any alternate hypothesis must corroberate with these "minimal facts."

It is Habermas' (and ORTHODOXY'S) belief, that Jesus' bodily resurrection from the dead best fits with these facts, and that all other hypotheses violate one or more of these "minimal facts."

So my question to you is: what part of this apologetic argument do you have such a problem with?

The facts are on OUR SIDE.

I agree with you that we should always use caution when reading non-Orthodox material. But be careful of pharisaicalism and super-correctness.

[Evfimy]

Saint Paul told us to be ready always to give an answer (apologia) to everyone who asks us a reason for the faith that we have (1Pet.3:15).

I meant Saint Peter

[Evfimy]

And when I think about it, there are at least five minimal facts regarding Christ that are accepted by Orthodox, Catholic, Copts and Protestants. These would include:

1. Jesus lived

2. Jesus is God

3. He was born of the Virgin Mary

4.Jesus died for our sins on the cross

1. He rose from the dead on the third day

There are other things we hold in common as well.

But I see no problem in taking apologetic arguments from heretics (who hold these things in common with us) and using them ourselves when presenting the faith.

[Evfimy]

It is true, however, that non-Orthodox people do not write and speak with the same piety that Orthodox and the Holy Father's do.

Orthodoxy is holy and has a way with words that only the Holy Spirit can give. This comes from the presence of grace and purity of heart.

But I still see no problem in taking the fruit of some heretics research and using it for the glory of the Church.

Anyway, that is my present position.