Clarification on "Apologetics"

Quick note, inspired by the post below: I do not believe that either the Purpose Driven flash-in-the-pan or the Emergent Church thing are apologetics issues. I am thoroughly convinced that you can be an utterly committed disciple of Rick Warren and still actually be saved!

Please hold all gasps 'til the end of the show. Thank you.

I also believe that the overwhelming majority of those in the ECM are thouroughly saved (though to be very candid, I am very concerned for MacLaren and Bell - but that's another subject entirely, I beleive they're out-and-out liberals). Much of the ECM is thoroughly wrong, to be sure... but you can be wrong and still be a brother.

Driscoll's a stark-raving, pinko-Commie Calvinist. Oh, well, nobody's perfect.

So this is not an apologetics issue.

"Apologetics" is the science of the defense of the faith "once for all delivered unto the saints." We apply apologetics to those outside the household of faith, as defined by Scripture (not tradition or "common culture" - one of the erros of the ECM). These are "in-house" debates, which while being important are not heresiological in nature.

These are subjects which we can (and must) vigorously debate; but we can never divide over them (in the sense of drawing the proverbial line in the sand and saying "if you're on that side, you're a heretical ninny).

Hope that helps bring some perspective to the issues at hand...