Apologetics

What?!?! Speak english man!!!

Apologetic(s);
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.
3. Serving as or containing a formal justification or defense: an apologetic treatise on church doctrine.

Something that interests me in theory if not principal but what a chore to find helpful info on. Before school started I did my own research on the matter and was left wanting for something that was more, for lack of a better word, professional. Now with school I am realizing that their is no apparent middle ground in the topic. By that I mean it goes from the casualy inept straight to the guys whose brains are so big they are spilling out of their heads. On one side we have people, I suppose like myself, who want to try and understand it but are stumbling around and on the other side are the scholarly people who speak as if it is written in Latin. I am thinking that part of the problem lies in the person I am reading as apposed to the topic. He is writing as if I am already on his level but I am not. Babysteps please. :/ Anyway I wanted to share some of the nuttiness with you quickly.

"The result? His "last problem" is the still unsolved mathematical puzzel, Prove or disprove that if n is greater than 2, there are no numbers, a, b, c such that an+bn=cn."
-Where is history going? By John Warwick Montgomery

Excuse me, is this algebra or theology? Triganomatry or biblical studies. Please tell me it isn't geomatry cause it took me three tries to get past that one. Sheesh. Needless to say I simply kept reading after I stopped laughing. The rest of the book is like that but without the math. Instead it uses large words that can be said just as well in laymans terms and I can't wait to get through it. Maybe it will make more sence as time goes on but right now, especially as it doesn't hold bearing on the class, I just want to finish it.

The other book, "Faith founded on Fact By John Warwick Montgomery" is equally as difficult. The title alone makes me cringe, but it's what's in the book that is so frustrating. Yet not without reward. The book and the author focus on evidencial apologetics above others seemingly because evidence is as close to true proof in the eyes of a non-believer as one can get. As such it is deamed of greater importants than other forms of apologetics which are more to my liking. My opinion, their is little place for soemone whose interest is to remove the need for faith. Which is not to say I don't want others saved, but I don't want what Jesus taught to be lost by scholarly brutes and their evedences. We were not handed proof for a reason, like it or not. Do I know the reason? Not really, but would a perfect God have removed all options save for faith if it were not the way? Would Jesus have performed miracles on people who would pass and disappear as apposed to a mountain or a river or something that would last if he wanted us to believe by proof? Seems to me that if we had the proof these men of evidential apologetics want then the world would be quick to change it's tone, but would it be right? On the other hand, as always, I do think we could use a hand in being prepared with confrontations and conversations with non-believers. We should be able to speak with confidence and an ability to refute with reason, logic, and heart the objections of those we speak with. At least to some degree. Maybe you don't agree, but I think it is improper to call a belief formed of facts, faith as it requires little or none. It is then simply belief.