Evangelistic Apologetics

[AJ Miller]

A Christian apologist by the name of Gregory Koukl has popularized an apologetic approach to get people to dismantle their own anti-Christian beliefs. He calls this "The Columbo Tactic." This tactic shifts the burden of proof on the non-Christian by asking questions that provoke the interlocutor to realize their own flaw of reasoning which ultimately dismantles one of their unreasonable beliefs.

I have used it toward my non-Apostolic and non-Christian friends for the past year or so. It does seem to help avoid confrontation and aggression that many other evangelistic approaches seem to fall short in.

Considering this, should we incorporate this into Apostolic evangelistic practice? If so, by what method?

[Esaias]

Please describe the method and give examples.

[Esaias]

What I have often done is point out that atheists and agnostics have no basis for determine the truth or falsity of ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. Because, to ask "Is this true?" requires an a priori assumption that something called Truth exists, objectively, externally, and independently of our opinions, wants, beliefs, etc. Which in turn means Truth must exist independently of the existence of humans. Or of anything, including matter and the cosmos itself.

And yet, Truth is a MENTAL CONCEPT, not a substance, and it can only be held in the mind. Therefore, there must be a mind that exists independently of humans, matter, and the cosmos itself.

If that's not the most basic definition for "God" then nothing could be.

So the atheist and agnostic must PRESUPPOSE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN ORDER TO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, or to even discuss the subject.

Which means atheism and agnosticism are self refuting before they even make a single proposal or statement.

[Esaias]

I have also NEVER found an atheist or long term agnostic who was capable of simple straightforward reasoning, or who was remotely skilled in basic logic. That is, when it comes to religion.

Which means the issue has nothing to do with reasoning. Every atheist I've encountered has a personal issue with God, Christianity, or religion in general. Usually some perceived insult or wrong that was done to them.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by AJ Miller

A Christian apologist by the name of Gregory Koukl has popularized an apologetic approach to get people to dismantle their own anti-Christian beliefs. He calls this "The Columbo Tactic." This tactic shifts the burden of proof on the non-Christian by asking questions that provoke the interlocutor to realize their own flaw of reasoning which ultimately dismantles one of their unreasonable beliefs.

I have used it toward my non-Apostolic and non-Christian friends for the past year or so. It does seem to help avoid confrontation and aggression that many other evangelistic approaches seem to fall short in.

Considering this, should we incorporate this into Apostolic evangelistic practice? If so, by what method?

Sounds like Socratic method in which you take the role of "student" and let the "teacher" dig a hole exposing just how much they dont know.

[Steven Avery]

In discussions, I have long avoided letting unbelievers use the "prove it to me, to my satisfaction" method of argumentation. That is a part of this "Columbo tactic."

And I've seen a lot of wasted energy in discussions that are not put on a level playing field.

==============

And I would be wary of carrying it too far, though, as if all the burden of proof is on the infidel, atheist or unbeliever. They might sniff out that you are playing them, especially if you do it as a methodology.

e.g. Every nature channel show gives 100 de facto refutations of evolution. Only a core rebellion allows that from being seen. Blindness from sin is the root of non-understanding, not anything related to intelligence or logic.

And I do try to get the evolutionist to say what probability would matter to them. The point is to show them that they are stuck in a presuppositional approach where they simply think the probability of God is 0, ergo nothing else really matters. No matter how unlikely or impossible is random creation, they just "know" it must be true, random everything must have occurred, because the alternative is the Creator.

====================

And I just used the creationary / evolution example because it is a reflection of overall rebellion. A spiritual principality.

Steven

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by AJ Miller

A Christian apologist by the name of Gregory Koukl has popularized an apologetic approach to get people to dismantle their own anti-Christian beliefs. He calls this "The Columbo Tactic." This tactic shifts the burden of proof on the non-Christian by asking questions that provoke the interlocutor to realize their own flaw of reasoning which ultimately dismantles one of their unreasonable beliefs.

I have used it toward my non-Apostolic and non-Christian friends for the past year or so. It does seem to help avoid confrontation and aggression that many other evangelistic approaches seem to fall short in.

Considering this, should we incorporate this into Apostolic evangelistic practice? If so, by what method?

It seems to me the Apostolic evangelistic practice is to not cast pearls before swine or that which is holy to the dogs. If a person has anti-Christian sentiments, more can be accomplished in the secret place through prayer and fasting, and by being a loving example of mercy and truth, than incorporating debate tactics learned at university.

The only time I would otherwise recognize the validity of debating an antichrist, is when there is an audience to win. Otherwise, foolish and unlearned questions avoid...

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

It seems to me the Apostolic evangelistic practice is to not cast pearls before swine or that which is holy to the dogs. If a person has anti-Christian sentiments, more can be accomplished in the secret place through prayer and fasting, and by being a loving example of mercy and truth, than incorporating debate tactics learned at university.

The only time I would otherwise recognize the validity of debating an antichrist, is when there is an audience to win. Otherwise, foolish and unlearned questions avoid...

That, my friend is a difficult lesson to learn.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

That, my friend is a difficult lesson to learn.

Learn from mistakes and stumble forward. The getting it right part is more by process than by accident.