• Besides the students and professors, what other groups of people do you have to deal with as a Christian? How do you preach and defend the gospel to them? How does your presentation or strategy differ? Why?

• From the standpoint of intellectual competence, it is impossible to underestimate non-Christians, since no estimation can be lower than the one that Scripture gives them. But is it possible to overestimate ourselves? If so, in what ways, and why? What are some of the problems that may arise from thus overestimating ourselves? And what can we do to regain a proper estimation of ourselves?

• What does it mean to have "informal and extended" conversations with our peers about Christ? What are the advantages to this approach? Are there disadvantages? Have you ever had one such conversation or series of conversations with anyone? If so, how did you perform? Did you maintain the right tone, intensity, and depth throughout the discussion?

• Many conversations in the Bible can be read in several seconds, but did any of them really lasted only several seconds, or did they last much longer? Consider John 4. How long did Jesus speak with the Samaritan woman? One can read from verse 7 to 26 in two minutes, but were the disciples away for only a hundred and twenty seconds (see v. 8 and 27)? Then, the woman went back to town, told the people about the conversation, and the people went out of town to see Jesus (v. 28-30), who then stayed another two days (v. 40).

• Provide biblical examples in which the characters involved spent hours or even days discussing the Christian faith. Consider Luke 24:13-35 and Acts 24:25-27, among many other examples. What implications can you derive from the realization that many biblical conversations lasted from hours to even years? I would suggest the principle that if you have the time, then take the time. Be slow and thorough. Do you agree?

• What is meant by the "hit-and-run" approach to evangelism or apologetics? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach? Have you ever successfully deployed such a method? Cite biblical examples that demonstrate this approach, but make sure that they indeed describe encounters that lasted no more than several minutes. Note the details described. Just because you can read a passage in several seconds does not mean that the actual conversation did not take several hours.

• Have you ever initiated a conversation about the Christian faith without a natural lead-in to the topic? Cite examples from your experience in street evangelism or from your personal relationships. What did you say to bring up the topic? What did you do when the other person showed no interest, or tried to end the discussion? What did you do to continue? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this "brute force" approach? Are you good at it?

• Initiate a conversation about the Christian faith with any person you choose using the brute force approach. Preach the gospel, refute arguments, answer objections. Note everything that is significant about the process and outcome. Prepare to use this approach whenever necessary in the future.

• What does it mean to pray for and anticipate "natural opportunities" to begin conversations about the Christian faith? Are these opportunities rare, or do you fail to take advantage of them because they are not always obvious? But whenever you managed to recognize these opportunities and started conversations with them, did you notice any difference in the length, depth, and intensity of the discussions as compared to conversations that you initiated by brute force?

• Begin to watch for natural opportunities to begin conversations about the Christian faith in your daily interactions with people, especially with your peers. Choose several of these opportunities and redirect the conversations to the Christian faith. Note everything that is significant about the process and outcome. Prepare to use this approach again in the future.

• Without mentioning that you are a Christian, and without making the conversation about Christianity (at least at first), find a number of non-Christian who claim to base their own beliefs and their reject of religion on science.

Then, without helping them, (1) ask them to list the assumptions behind the scientific method, (2) ask them to list every step in the scientific method, (3) ask them to show how one step leads to the next step in the scientific method, and (4) ask them to defend the idea that this method can discover anything about reality at all. You may find that, among those who adamantly insist on their reliance on science, very few if any of them can answer even the first or the second question. And none of them can answer the third and fourth.

Now it is obvious that they cannot defend their reliance on science, or even show that they understand science, ask them if they are going to doubt their beliefs or change their beliefs about anything. What do they say? Do they behave in a rational manner? Are these intelligent people?

• If possible, initiate a conversation with a professor who specializes in a scientific subject, preferably biology or physics. Repeat the above exercise. You will find that his answers are more convoluted than those that the students gave you, and he might be able to answer questions (1) and (2). But you will find that he is also unable to answer questions (3) and (4). Again, are these rational people? Are they intelligent?

• From any college text book, look up an explanation of the scientific method. Refute it. It should take no longer than 3 to 10 seconds.

• From any college textbook, look up a description of an experiment performed using the scientific method. Refute it. It should take no longer than 3 to 10 seconds.

• From any college textbook, look up the explanation and proof of a scientific theory. This can be any recorded scientific theory from any period of human history, but preferably one that is considered well-established. Refute it. It should take no longer than 3 to 10 seconds. Repeat this exercise as many times as you wish. What does this demonstrate about science? And what does this say about the people who rely on it as the way to understand reality?

• Pick any undergraduate student and ask him to tell you his position about an issue that he cares about. It can be his opinion on religion, politics, science, history, or anything at all. Then, ask him to give you an argument to support his opinion. But make him show his work – ask him to prove his conclusion step-by-step, showing how each premise is true and how it leads to the next, and then finally to the conclusion.

For example, if he contends that a certain scientific theory is true, do not let him get away with saying, "Because the evidence supports it." Ask him to cite one piece of evidence from which he could validly infer the conclusion. If he refers to an experiment that allegedly proves the theory, without even mentioning the problems with the scientific method, ask him to specify each step of the experiment, including the assumptions behind the experiment, the reasons for choosing each variable, and so on, and describe how the experiment proves the conclusion.

Unless you chance upon an especially conscientious young man or woman, my guess is that you might have to ask several hundred students before one can even come close to doing what I have just described. In many cases, you will find that they cannot tell you how the evidences and experiments that they cite are even relevant to the conclusions that they wish to assert. Yet they appear confident, and consider themselves intelligent. This will only make their failure so much more obvious when confronted by a skillful biblical apologist.

• Besides the disadvantages of evidentialism mentioned in a previous chapter, what are the additional disadvantages of evidentialism when dealing with a professor?

• Have you ever argued with a professor in class because he made anti-Christian assertions? Did the debate become hostile? What was the students' attitude toward you? Were they intrigued, irritated, or what? In any case, did you win? Sometimes people say that they do not want to "win the argument, but lose the convert." Why is this a stupid statement? What might be the true reason why these people do not want to argue for the faith? What is wrong with them?

• What is the correct interpretation and application of 1 Peter 3:15? How is this verse usually misused? Cite at least one example from a book on Christian apologetics. Besides the spiritual crime of distorting Scripture, what damage does an abuse of this verse do to the practice of apologetics? Why is the verse relevant to the relationship between student and professor? How can you apply this verse to your situation? In other words, how does this affect how you argue for the faith before a professor?

• Have you silently endured while a professor attacked the Christian faith in class? If so, did your conscience rebuke you for not speaking up? What could you have done? What would it mean to be "wise as a serpent" in such a situation? In other words, how can you stand up for the faith without being foolish about it or inciting unnecessary persecution?

• Discuss with other Christian students on how they handle attacks against the Christian faith in class. Do they have a method? Do they consider it a problem at all? Do they endure silently, retort recklessly, or what? Are their approaches biblical? And what outcomes do their methods produce?

• When it comes to assignments and examinations, how do you show that you understand the course materials without expressing agreement to the anti-Christian ideas? Do you have a biblical and consistent approach? Share it with other Christian students.

• Find an example in which an author uses non-fiction to advance an argument. Identify his agenda and the conclusion that he asserts. Locate the premises that supposedly lead to his conclusion. Refute every part of the argument. Repeat the exercise as many times as desired.

• Find an example in which an author uses fiction to advance an argument. Identify his agenda and the conclusion that he asserts. Locate the premises that supposedly lead to his conclusion. Refute every part of the argument. Repeat the exercise as many times as desired.

Posted in Apologetics, Spirituality | Permanent Link