Turning the tables

I'm writing a lot about the Baptists these days, but now it's time to talk about the home team.  A recent post by an old friend made me think.  He became a believer in college and in true PCA style started thinking.  He learned all the right theology and, when that wasn't enough, became an expert in apologetics.  For those who don't know, apologetics is the big Christian word for convincing someone to become a Christian.

My friend was in a debate tonight in front of an audience.  His post is as follows:

a) If the Bible is inerrant then you can trust in the resurrection of Jesus
b) The Bible is not inerrant (Look at all these errors…)
...Therefore
c) you cannot trust in the resurrection of Jesus

But this is an invalid argument.

Who can name the error in their line of reasoning???

My response should be "who cares?"  But then I would get in an online argument about arguing.

This may not be true about my old friend, but it was of me when I studied a little apologetics years ago:  I focused so much on the fallacies of the other person's thinking and the rightness of mine that I forget the other person was there.

It's an old saying, but no one has ever been argued into heaven.  And in today's post modern age Christians should not expect people to follow consistent, "logical" thought processes.  A post modern age creates a different set of rules of logic.  I'm not saying that apologetics is no longer a valid field of study, but we are nearing an age where we reclassify it as classical apologetics, useful only for historical purposes.