Best 194 quotes in «apologetics quotes» category

Those small moments of pleasure men get from sin, from defying God, are perhaps grace - His final gift still to those who hard-heartedly choose to deny Him. Godless men may blatantly enjoy offending God not because they are free-spirited, but on the whole because He moves them to enjoy it. Sin is, in a sense, still touching God: for a strike involves a touch. Perhaps this is His divine kindness. Faithful men find everlasting fulfillment in His good company; but godless men who strike at the Author of Joy, who are completely ignorant of the greater, for them - and by God's love for His enemies - there is yet this small recoil known as 'pleasure' before the fall.

Today's zealots are mostly those pretending to be anti-religious.

To merely blank the page and vaguely assume that 'religion' is the cause of all the world's problems is, on the contrary, an allegation brought about by nothing more than cognitive lethargy; it is when unburied, unpacked, and exposed but a stale conclusion and a misdirection for the one overwhelmed by centuries of sound theology, scholarly thought, and spiritual development.

Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief.

To me, many of what seemed to be Bible contradictions only pointed to the grace of Christ. It is not so much a rule book on how to be holy as it is a prophecy of the One who can make you holy. In this, I see God as the least bigoted of all in existence: While men always, in their hearts, delight in vengeance for being wronged, God is the only Being who wants to free you from the penalty of His own laws.

Too many in the Church today are likes babies in the nursery,they put everything in their mouth.

To the short-sighted, through the fog, God must be a monster.

Though his public teaching lasted only three years, it has been scrutinized by scholars in every science—among them theology, philosophy, psychology, and sociology to name a few. Jesus’ influence has founded universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Princeton, and Harvard. Now spanning the entire globe, Jesus’ followers have been inspired throughout the centuries to set up educational institutions to teach what he taught.

To Die is not as bad as not having lived

We knew what atheists and humanists and Buddhists believed before we actually met any atheists or humanists or Buddhists, and we knew how to effectively discredit their worldviews before ever encountering them on our own.

We also have volumes of writings by the "apostolic fathers," who were the earliest Christian writers after the New Testament. They authored the Epistle of Clement of Rome, the Epistles of Ignatius, the Epistle of Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, and others. In many places these writings attest to the basic facts about Jesus, particularly his teachings, his crucifixion, his resurrection, and his divine nature. "Which of these writings do you consider most significant?" I asked. Yamauchi pondered the question. While he didn't name the one he thought was most significant, he did cite the seven letters of Ignatius as being among the most important of the writings of the apostolic fathers. Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch in Syria, was martyred during the reign of Trajan before A.D. 117. "What is significant about Ignatius," said Yamauchi, "is that he emphasized both the deity of Jesus and the humanity of Jesus, as against the docetic heresy, which denied that Jesus was really human. He also stressed the historical underpinnings of Christianity; he wrote in one letter, on his way to being executed, that Jesus was truly persecuted under Pilate, was truly crucified, was truly raised from the dead, and that those who believe in him would be raised, too. Put all this together- Josephus, the Roman historians and officials, the Jewish writings, the letters of Paul and the a

We have to do a better job at the work of anthropology if we hope to maintain our role in the public discourse.

We must not allow our pride to be the motivation behind our apologetics; rather, philoverity, the love of truth must be the full and complete motivation. For pride corrupts truth.

We must also and always be discerning about the spirit of the age in any generation, which today means squarely facing the seductions of technique.

What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.

We've been given a mind innovated by the Holy Spirit to know God, as well as a heart to love him and a will to choose him. We need to function in all three areas to have a maximum relationship with God and to glorify him.

What's simple is that everything good comes from God, and everything bad comes from man. Where it gets complicated is that everything seemingly good but ultimately bad comes from man, and everything seemingly bad but ultimately good comes from God.

What we fail to realize is we often become like Pharisees in our ruthless attempts to identify Pharisees (and impostors). While indeed some people use the old laws of religious pride to tear down men of God, others use the new laws of anti-religious anger to tear down men of God.

When it comes to believing in the important things in life (like love, hope, justice, peace) we have a hard time proving they are real things. We cannot put love in a beaker over a Bunsen burner and watch it prove its existence to us. We believe in love because we have faith that it is there. Our faith in love is not blind faith. Though we cannot prove love is real, we have reasons for believing that it is. It’s the same with God. No one can prove God’s existence, but we can have faith in the evidence that we do have." (Life Hacks, p.18)

Whence but from heaven, could men unskilled in arts, In several ages born, in several parts, Weave such agreeing truths? Or how, or why, Should all conspire to cheat us with a lie?

We should expect nothing less from the language that was originally given by God, to His human family. Hebrew was the method that God chose for mankind to speak to Him, and Him to them. Adam spoke Hebrew—and your Bible confirms this. Everyone who got off the ark spoke one language—Hebrew. Even Abraham spoke Hebrew. Where did Abraham learn to speak Hebrew? Abraham was descended from Noah’s son, Shem. (Ge 11:10-26) Shem’s household was not affected by the later confusion of languages, at Babel. (Ge 11:5-9) To the contrary, Shem was blessed while the rest of Babel was cursed. (Ge 9:26) That is how Abraham retained Hebrew, despite residing in Babylon. So, Shem’s language can be traced back to Adam. (Ge 11:1) And, Shem (Noah’s son) was still alive when Jacob and Esau was 30 years of age. Obviously, Hebrew (the original language) was clearly spoken by Jacob’s sons. (Ge 14:13)

When it comes to doubt, there is not one size that fits all. Some people struggle with it and some people don’t. Some people scream their way into doubt through pain and suffering, while others seem to drift into doubt. It’s that simple and that complex.

When you find that a theology has nothing more to offer than what the world already offers, then that theology as a theology is impractical, and therefore, useless.

When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in everything.

Where neither go wrong, the naive only see the world as a victim of bad doctrine; the cynic only sees good doctrine as a victim of the world.

When making a point, there are 2 types of people who may disagree with you: those who can support their reasons, and the childish ones who are too worried about being told what to do.

When you take the time to look at the real relationship between faith and science, you find the two are not enemies; rather, they are friends. Granted, they are friends that do not always agree on everything. No friendship ever does. They have their points of tension. Every friendship has these as well. As friends, faith and science have a great deal of history together. They work hard to hold each other accountable and challenge one another to be better (I hope you have friends like that too).

Where is there a systematic theology class that helps students realize that when you unpack the inclination or the nature of the Trinity or the two natures of Christ or the substitutionary atonement, you commune with the Lord as you defend and contend for the doctrine, or else you are not doing it right? No wonder people often don't want to be around doctrinally driven individuals! They are not doing doctrine right. They are not emotionally in touch with the truths they are teaching.

Without Christ a people may always have the freedom to do, but never the power to complete.

Without freedom, both the possibilities for people to love and to destroy would be eliminated. The problem of evil is the problem of freedom. God is Love incarnate (1), and despite the high amount of choice that He allows, He also is bursting to lavish His Love not merely on the perfect, which existed solely in Christ, but on the imperfect who could never deserve it by virtue of their imperfection (2). He does not completely shield the more deserving, not even the sole perfect One in all of human history, from destruction, yet He loves to redeem and restore, even through death at times as with His only begotten Son (3). His love is completely undeserved for the imperfect, despite their notions at times of amassing karma by their good deeds, yet He loves to pour out grace on the undeserving (4). Everything good in our existence, including the very life that we have, the air that we breathe, and even the good things that we do are by His mercy and grace (5). May all praise be to the One who has lavished loving-kindness on us in times of plenty and in times of want, who even seeks to grow us in the darkest of times when the cost of freedom is most clear, who remains with those who have found Him even though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death (6). 1: 1 John 4:16; 2: Romans 3:9-31; 9:16, 23-29; 11:5-6 3. Job, Isaiah 53:3-6, 11 (prophesied centuries before Christ), Romans 3:24-26, 2 Corinthians 5:21 4. Romans 5:6-8; 11: 35-36, Isaiah 64:6, Ephesians 2:7-9, Psalm 50:7-15 5. James 1:17, Romans 2:4 6. Romans 8:28, Ephesians 1:3-10, James 1:2-5, Philippians 4:4-9, Psalm 23, Deuteronomy 31:8

You can never make someone like something they don't like, but you can always help them to better understand it.

While we are often willing to spend time reading the Bible, praying, or participating in church programs and services, few of us recognize the importance of becoming good Christian case makers.

Adam was told to name the animals. Adam studied each kind and gave them a name based on his observations. Every animal “kind” has some behavior or characteristic that is unique to that animal type. When you know the Hebrew name for an animal, you get a peek at how a perfect man, speaking a perfect language, understood that perfect animal.

After the disintegration of Christendom-a historical apparatus that gave cultural pride of place to Christianity-Christian truth claims cannot be taken for granted or simply asserted using logical apologetics. Rather, the truth of the faith appears to stand or fall based on its goodness, as shown in the lives of those who claim it.

Angels are good not simply because they see bad as bad, but also because they see bad as corny.

Anyway, God is not susceptible to proofs and disproofs. If you believe, the evidence is all around you. If you don’t believe, no evidence can be enough.

Apologetics is both a science and an art. It is a science because it deals with the truth found within the various disciplines of knowledge—philosophy, biology, physics, math, and history. It is also an art because each person has the flexibility to craft their arguments however they wish." (Life Hacks, p.85)

Apologetics=faith is weak, lets defend it

As for the belief that humanity is mostly good, Secular humanism, when in that alignment, always presumes the existence of a higher power, or some god-like influence on man. Because it then becomes the belief that people are generally good and should be protected from the wiles of religion, as though this dark, vague and ignorant force once fell from the heavens, latched onto the purer hearts and minds of men and women, and, in all its forms, controlled and polluted the whole of human history. He says, 'When we defeat religion, humanity will be free.' But, if he were duly consistent, if he were really at all as secular as he claims, he might as well admit to what is actually an underlying brand of nihilistic cynicism: 'When we defeat humans, humanity will be free.

A great many skeptics are unfortunately put to waste, in that they vainly focus their energy on ridiculing a certain tiny denomination of Biblical fundamentalism, a denomination seated just one chair away from unbelief. They, the skeptics, cannot believe because they are the most literal of fundamentalists: of those who must interpret Scripture as simply an obsolete, absolutely dead compilation of intellectual incompetence. Nevertheless, by all means, because, after all, that is supposed to happen - Scripture states of itself that all thought and interpretation is folly without the Holy Spirit - however the ironic thing is the case in which one believes that the Bible is, in its true essence, completely outdated. And like flashes in a pan, he hints at his naivety, that he knows little about the world around him, little about those who live in it. Either that, or he knows little about what Scripture really says in relation to the world around him, little about what it really says in relation to those who live in it. It is as though he is the one dead to the world and it to him. He has not the Spirit to give life to his own spirit; he can only possibly understand Scripture as long-deceased rather than the modern world's very living narrative.

Ancient wisdom collides with modern crises, equipping believers to image Christ in a world entranced with salvific knock-offs.

Apologetics is reason flying to the rescue of faith

Atheism will appeal to psychology and sociology to explain human behavior, which is legitimate, but what explains human psychology? Atheism can only find explanatory power in evolution such that the mind is - paradoxically - a mindless organ that is forced to act according to its chemistry and cannot act otherwise. The fact that humans are capable of recognizing depravity in others, are offended by it, seek to reform it, feel guilt, and are capable of redemptive behavior all speak against this explanation. The fact that humans are capable of meta-cognition - thinking about thinking - and are therefore able to postulate their own mindlessness is counter-intuitive to say the least.

As Peter Berger has noted, the strategy of apologizing for Christian faith by trying to demonstrate its social utility is always eventually self-liquidating. Sooner of later people realize that a great many of the supposedly practical and secular benefits of the Christian religion can be had more easily without religion...The logic of practical atheism may well be more deeply ingrained in the evangelical tradition than conservatives perhaps have realized.

A weak and dying Messiah is the very antithesis of a man-made cure.

Benjamin Franklin said, "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." I disagree. To live faithless I propose that you would actually have to be insane, particularly in the realm of extreme paranoia. For instance, to merely take a breath of air, one must have some measure of faith. One must have the faith that there is not any invisible, odorless, & lethal substance that has gone airborne in your area. To eat or drink something prepared by others, such as at a restaurant, one must have the faith that no one has poisoned your food. You can certainly examine your food prior to eating it, but to run a countless number of tests to see if it is poisoned in a way that is undetectable by sight, scent, or taste is ridiculous on a daily basis & there are poisonous substances that could remain undetected. Regardless of your belief in God, gods, atheism, or agnosticism, to completely abstain from faith in life as we know it would make the movie "Bubble Boy" seem like child's play. No, Franklin misunderstands faith and in haste has put a box around reason whose exclusion of faith can't rationally exist in order to further try to justify his disbelief in God including the perceived allowance for self-determination of morality. The man who has no faith in anything is unreasonable, and the man who has no reason is incapable of faith.

Benjamin Franklin said, "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." I disagree. To truly believe Franklin's statement in the simple terms of the quote, not qualified in any capacity, I propose that you would actually have to be insane, particularly in the realm of extreme paranoia. For instance, to merely take a breath of air, one must have some measure of faith in the vast majority of normal circumstances. One must have the faith that there is not any invisible, odorless, & lethal substance that has gone airborne in your area. To eat or drink something prepared by others, such as at a restaurant, one must have the faith that no one has poisoned your food. You can certainly examine your food prior to eating it, but to run a countless number of tests to see if it is poisoned in a way that is undetectable by sight, scent, or taste is ridiculous on a daily basis. Regardless of your belief in God, gods, atheism, or agnosticism, to completely abstain from faith in life as we know it would make the movie "Bubble Boy" seem like child's play. No, Franklin misunderstands faith and in his error has put a box around reason whose exclusion of faith can't rationally exist in order to further try to justify self-determination of morality. The man who has no faith in anything is unreasonable, and the man who has no reason is incapable of faith.

As students grow more and more accustomed to assuming materialism and naturalism in their academic work, the concept of creation by God gradually tends to become less real to them. It is not so much that any single finding undermines their faith; rather, the day-to-day practice of thinking in naturalistic terms about academic subjects makes it awkward to think differently when it comes to religion.

Be careful not to appear obsessively intellectual. When intelligence fills up, it overflows a parody.

Before I met the Jesuits, I’d never encountered another group who thought that intellect and arrogance were treasures beyond price and necessities in waging wars against blasphemers, heretics.