*Note*: This question has been inspired by the related question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99867/61679* --- I'm intrigued by the prospect of tailoring apologetics strategies specifically to effectively present a compelling case for the truth of Christianity to those who adhere to pagan beliefs. While traditional apologetics often focuses on persuading atheists and agnostics, such as in works like "[I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist](https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615) ," there is a unique challenge when engaging with individuals who already accept beliefs in deities, miracles, the supernatural, and similar concepts within a pagan or non-Christian framework. What arguments and approaches does Christian apologetics employ to effectively persuade individuals holding such perspectives? Delving further into pagan theology unveils intriguing concepts such as [theurgy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy) and [thaumaturgy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaumaturgy) . Theurgy, commonly linked with [Neoplatonism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism) , encompasses rituals and practices aimed at invoking the presence of divine entities. Thaumaturgy, on the other hand, often pertains to the use of magical acts or miracles for practical ends. Additionally, one may encounter related terms such as [Western esotericism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism) , [Eastern Esotercisim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_esotericism) , [Perennial philosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy) , [Kabbalah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah) , [Hermeticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism) , [Occult](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult) , [Modern paganism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_paganism) , [Shamanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism) , [Spiritualism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism) , [New Thought](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought) , [Theosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy) , [Witchcraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft) , [Druidism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druidry_(modern)) , [Yoga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga) , [Reiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki) , [Astrology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology) , and [New Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age) . > Theurgy (/ˈθiːɜːrdʒi/; from Greek θεουργία theourgía), also known as divine magic, is one of two major branches of the magical arts, the other being practical magic or thaumaturgy. Theurgy describes the ritual practices associated with the invocation or evocation of the presence of one or more deities (also called "godforms"), especially with the goal of achieving henosis (uniting with the divine) and perfecting oneself. (Source: [Theurgy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy).) > Thaumaturgy is the purported capability of a magician to work magic or other paranormal events or a saint to perform miracles. It is sometimes translated into English as wonderworking. > >A practitioner of thaumaturgy is a "thaumaturge", "thaumaturgist", "thaumaturgus", "miracle worker", or "wonderworker". A 'saint', being one who is variably defined as having an exceptional degree of holiness, enlightenment, or likeness or closeness to God, may be claimed to have performed miracles; these generally being defined as exceptional events or deeds not within the normative means of natural or human power, instead being of some supernatural or preternatural manner. Although the definition of a 'miracle', like the definition of a 'saint', will vary yet further among separate religions, sects, and schools. > > **Buddhism** > See also: *Abhijñā* and *Miracles of Gautama Buddha* > In the introduction of his translation of the "Spiritual Powers (神通 Jinzū)" chapter of Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, Carl Bielefel refers to the powers developed by adepts of Buddhist meditation as belonging to the "thaumaturgical tradition". These powers, known as siddhi or abhijñā, were ascribed to the Buddha and subsequent disciples. Legendary monks like Bodhidharma, Upagupta, Padmasambhava, and others were depicted in popular legends and hagiographical accounts as wielding various supernatural powers. > > **Hinduism** > See also: *Godman (India)* > Godman is a colloquial term used in India for a type of charismatic guru. They usually have a high-profile presence, and are capable of attracting attention and support from large sections of the society. Godmen also sometimes claim to possess paranormal powers, such as the ability to heal, the ability to see or influence future events, and the ability to read minds. > > (Source: [Thaumaturgy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaumaturgy).) When exploring these concepts, I'm intrigued to know if apologists have crafted arguments or techniques specifically designed to resonate with followers and practitioners of pagan religions. For example, are there instances where apologetics has been meticulously tailored to address the beliefs of modern New Agers or adherents of the *perennial philosophy*? Analyzing specific instances across different religions can provide valuable insights into how apologetics effectively navigates the nuances between Christianity and the diverse viewpoints found within pagan traditions, especially in the context of engaging with and proselytizing a pagan audience.

When engaging with non-believers, including atheists, agnostics, apatheists, pagans, and others, two distinct approaches come to light: The first is the **Apologetics** approach, involving the presentation of a rational case for the truth of Christianity via intellectual arguments and evidence. Noteworthy examples include: - [*Five Proofs of the Existence of God*](https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333) , by Edward Feser - [*Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe*](https://www.amazon.com/Return-God-Hypothesis-Compelling-Scientific/dp/0062071505/) , by Stephen C. Meyer - [*A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics*](https://www.amazon.com/Mousetrap-Darwin-Michael-Answers-Critics/dp/1936599910) , by Michael J. Behe - [*I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist*](https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615) , by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek - [*Answering Atheism: How to Make the Case for God with Logic and Charity*](https://www.amazon.com/Answering-Atheism-Make-Logic-Charity/dp/1938983432) , by Trent Horn - [*Mere Christianity*](https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926) , by C. S. Lewis - [*Warranted Christian Belief*](https://www.amazon.com/Warranted-Christian-Belief-Alvin-Plantinga/dp/0195131932) , by Alvin Plantinga - [*The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus*](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001QOGJY0/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0) , by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona - [*Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts*](https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525) , by Craig S. Keener The second approach is **Evangelism**, with Spirit and power. The Apostle Paul advocates for this approach in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5: >**1** And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. **2** For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. **3** I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. **4** **And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power**, **5** **that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God**. Considering these two approaches to proselytizing, my question is as follows: Are there established and widely recognized principles in Christianity that guide the decision of when to prioritize the approach of evangelism over apologetics, or vice versa? More specifically, is the preaching of the gospel with Spirit and power in evangelism always the preferred method, relegating the use of sophisticated philosophical arguments often associated with apologetics to a secondary and complementary role?

Here, I would like to conjure an excercise, as I am well schooled in history and theology of Judeo-Christianity as a side-kick to my Graeco-Roman theological studies and other comparative systems of thought, religion, and philosophy. How would you convince a Heathen to your religion, if: His faith is completely reasonable, not faith-based, namely: claiming hypothesis, building arguments upon arguments of pillar-like soundness that are rock-solid as Parthenon, that reach a conclusion that Polytheism is a natural outcome of the intelligent, and the Monadic "One" is an abstract formula of Pythagorean progressions and theology of arithmetic and geometry. It is therefore a reason-based theology that moves Gods closer, and the remote "En To Pan" is unreachable by the human intellect, reason, anyone claiming to impersonate "objective truth" is a charlatan-guru and realizations of Divinities are approached by establishing ratio and intervals of understanding that correspond with Plotinian "notions" of the metaphysical worlds. Moreover, the aformentioned claims that all religions are man-made, but that does not refute the existence of spiritual worlds, they may be approximated in the eye of the beholder - to a limited extent; there was no reveleation as such, the Gods may or may not reveal themselves, metaphysics and the transcendent realms can do without human belief-systems, a mortal is merely "measuring Heavens and metaphysical realities" with himself, herself, but "heavens and stars are not brought for the sake of a mortal animal" (Iamblichus of Chalcis). His theology relies solely on antique studies, vast literature that is oft ignored by Christians, apart from living experience bestowed by the Providential Gods, starting from Parmenidian doxology, throughout careful understanding of Egypto-Hellenic theologies, into multiple mystery and initiatory cults, psychopompic, psychagogic and otherwise transformative both aretorolically, up to Plotinian Enneads and into Mithraism. He may and understand the cults and their purpose well, which was an effective deification, heroization and epitomization of the soul. Moreover, he is a practicioner of the methods and schools and receives "Theion Ergon", or work of the Divinities upon him, subverting any form of reliance on the Essene Gnostic Jesus and his ecclesiastikoi (the Church). His angelology and bestiaries of spirits are related strictly to Republican and Imperial cults of the Graeco-Romans, avoiding the ideas contained in Dionysos Aeropagite of later "hierarchizations" that was strictly Judeo-Christian. His aretology is based on twenty private and public virtues of Rome and paideic standards of the Hellenes. He doesn't believe in sin or baptism, as an "inventio" of Judaism in face of the dream to be liberated from the Romans, therefore his hamartiology is based not on a "fatal flaw" of birth into nature, but gigantomachia, the battle and overcoming of nature and responsible life, the only transgression is that not to take sculpting in the nature, ethos as a rewarding, heroic enterprise that results in deification posthumously. On top of that, he may be a blatant, openly effective Heathen theurgist and practicing necromancer, an excorcist etc. avoiding all the Judeo-Christian methods of act, belief, and submission. He believes morality is relative, humaneness is difficult to define, and it is by the virtue of his daimon that he becomes noble, bearing, strong and righteous, moreover that human nature - following Plato - is neither good nor evil - every beastiality and idyll may be found amongst nature and the problem of "evil" is that of conflicting natures, war of the elements and inclinations, to be solved first and foremost within by a noble, strong conduct, overcoming suffering not being conquered by it. Is there any argument to convert such a person, or merely "believe because so" is the answer provided to a reasoned, educated Heathen that does not accept the Abrahamic god, nor an Essene gnostic "Jesus" as a figure of any relevance, apart from the creed that professes suhc a belief?

So my question is about churches (or more specifically the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church) which bar all forms of fellowship (to include prayer) unless all points of doctrine are agreed upon. For example, two Lutherans, one from WELS and one from LCMS, have very similar doctrines. The LCMS Lutheran believes in limited fellowship, but will pray with non LCMS Lutherans. The WELS Lutheran will not pray with the LCMS Lutheran however. This makes me wonder: How is it possible to help someone grow in the faith when you cannot even pray with a person until you agree on all points of doctrine? How can they even learn all points of expected doctrine without having a community they are in fellowship with? Do they make an exception when someone is growing in the faith? Do they not bring people to worship services until they're ready to be baptised - and agree to believe all points of doctrine? (So do they discourage parishioners from bringing friends to church?)

The local Presbyterian Church has a sign outside offering an Alpha Course. I'm sure I've heard of the same course being offered by the Roman Catholic Church. So is the Alpha Course a very general *Mere-Christianity*-type thing, or is it customised to each denomination, or are the two Alpha courses completely unrelated?

This post may be considered as a follow-up for a previous post of mine , which unfortunately was closed because it did not "focuses on one problem only". Okay, let me rephrase my question to try to make it both more focused, and more politically correct: **Are there any well known online Christian Polemic repositories that have the talking points that can be used to counter the proselytizers of non-Christian faiths who are targeting Christians?** I know that there are a lot of sites with apologetics talking points, but I am looking for sites with polemics talking points.

At first glance both Christian [missionaries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary#Christian_missions) and [apologists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics) appear to be dedicated individuals who share the same goal of winning people over to Christianity, by presenting the Christian faith in a way that is convincing and compelling to their target audiences. So to me, the concepts seem to overlap a lot, and I am unable to pinpoint a specific feature that only pertains to missionaries but not to apologists, or vice versa. When faced with the (possibly challenging) task of addressing unbelievers in order to convince them that Christianity is true, are there any notable differences between missionaries and apologists? Do they tend to emphasize different skillsets? Do they approach the task differently? Are there certain things that missionaries are usually better equipped to do than apologists (and vice versa), when it comes to proselytizing for the Christian faith?

My agnostic friend has asked for "formal evidence" of the Bible. How can one scientifically evaluate statements written over 2,000 years ago? Besides the historical evaluation of events, how to evaluate the validity of the message and the soundness of its premises? Are there any formal methods to evaluate the contents and message of the bible, from a scientific or logical perspective?

There are some Christian groups who believe that all religions are inherently good and that a good person who rejects Jesus Christ will still go to Heaven . According to them, if good people can go to Heaven regardless of what their religion is, then do we still have to tell them about Jesus Christ or we can just leave them alone to worship their own god, gods or goddesses?

Aren't they both focused on converting people? What's the difference?

Door to door Jehovah's Witnesses / Mormons, people preaching in town centres, posters outside churches, alpha course. Why do Christians have to promote their beliefs to other people? What difference does it make to believers if other people do not believe the same as them? Do they not think they may offend atheists? I am interested to hear from people who actively promote their religion to non-believers and what drives them.

First of all, I assume that everybody should have some sort of justification for his beliefs. Secondly, I assume that Christians are interested in convincing others to join them as evangelisation seems to be promoted in the bible. Lastly, I assume that Christians respect the laws of logic and therefore their justifications must also follow these laws. My question, based on these assumptions, is as follows: How do Christians justify their beliefs to themselves as well as to others and how do they convince others of their belief? *I am aware that this question is very fundamental. I tried to find an answer on the site, however, I couldn't find any. Please point me to any questions with good answers regarding this topic that I couldn't find!*