… intelligent [that is, understanding the opponent's side before attempting to dismantle it. So many times, I have been frustrated with Christians who argue against Darwinian evolution using arguments that are actually reactions to Lamarckian evolution ... or Christians who try to prove the truth of the New Testament by appealing to prophecies in the Old Testament, not recognizing that this is circular reasoning ... or using utterly false data, such as the supposed "missing day" that supposedly verifies the sun standing still for the Israelites ... and so on]

… articulate [that is, being able to state clearly and concisely one's own reasons for belief]

… gracious [that is, refusing to argue in anger or in ways that belittle one's opponent, regardless of how wrong she or he may be]

… and selective [that is, recognizing that, when interacting with a pre-believer, the only issue that really matters is the authenticity of God's consummate self-revelation in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead, many Christians become bogged down, talking with the pre-believer in political, millennial, and other vestigial issues that have no ultimate effect on the eternal status of one's soul.]

I’ve had a few friends who have begun this downward spiral, and it’s very difficult sometimes, to help them pull out of it. The main reason I’ve found is because they want to start arguing apologetics, and most of us are not well versed enough to have a true apologetic debate. It leaves me in a place where I can barely interact with the person, but just need to pray. I don’t know…I have very few answers about how to deal with this trend in this generation because this is going to become a growing challenge that the church and para-churches begin to face on a regular basis.

I was looking at the Publishers Weekly synopsis of The Lost Christianities and it asks, “What if Marcion’s canon-which consisted only of Luke’s Gospel and Paul’s letters, entirely omitting the Old Testament-had become Christianity’s canon?” Well, as far as we can tell, the Church would be greatly anti-semitic, would have undercut its own history in denying its Jewish roots, and would have little good to say about this world given Marcion was a gnostic who despised the physical world around him. That doesn’t sound like a fun religion to me. I don’t know if Ehrman makes Marcion out to be a hero, but he was guilty of far worse of what many scholars accuse the Early Church of doing in its canonization process — Marcion had room only for one Gospel.

If people want to read the gnostic Gospels like Thomas, that’s fine. I’m surprised that so many scholars hold them up as a better Christianity than what we get in the canonical Gospels. Jesus in Thomas is far more cranky and judgmental. Also, I’d much rather have Luke’s treatment of women than Thomas’.