Getting a Grip on Apologetics, Part 2: Debunking Myths and Misunderstandings

November 1, 2013

by Johnathan Pritchett
Graduate Student, Biola University
SBCToday contributing writer

In Part 1, Christian apologetics was defined and explained in the context of its biblical use, purpose, and warrant. Moreover, it was pointed out that apologetics is both a mandate and a function of the Church and for the Church. Here in Part 2, in some coherent order, several myths and misunderstandings regarding apologetics will be addressed. Continue reading

Getting a grip on apologetics: definitions and clarity, part 1

October 29, 2013

by Johnathan Pritchett
Graduate Student, Biola University
SBCToday contributing writer

While it may appear to many who surf the Internet for popular evangelical websites and blogs that apologetical material is everywhere, graduate programs for it are popping up at seminaries, and more and more evangelical apologists are making the rounds at conferences, it remains the case that apologetics is relatively unknown in the majority of Southern Baptist churches. Where it is known, there seems to be a great deal of confusion regarding what apologetics is and isn’t, and it even receives its share of criticism from the scholars and pastors within the SBC who are unfamiliar with the apologetical enterprise, but sadly, speak as if they know all about it. Continue reading

Faith talk belongs in the Public Square

September 8, 2013

by Ronnie Rogers, pastor
Trinity Baptist Church,
Norman, Okla.

Actually, the original title of this essay is
“The Legitimacy of Religiously Based Arguments in the Public Square,”
and SBCToday believes you should click that long title because it links to Pastor Rogers’
informed, relevant treatise at But before you click, note the teasers below.

  1. Everyone believes some unproven assumptions.
  1. Both secularism and supernaturalism are worldviews.
  1. Everyone argues from a worldview.
  1. Suitable publicly debatable ideas need only to provide some publicly accessible rational evidence.
  1. The source of an idea is not a sufficient cause for aprioristic exclusion from public debate.
  1. Associated faith assumptions do not disqualify all associated beliefs.
  1. Faith cannot truly be excluded from the marketplace of ideas.