So here are a few random thoughts of I have had:
1. "Creation evangelism" claims that "creation is the foundation" because it
provides the presuppositional basis for the Gospel (sin, death etc.) This
sounds plausible, but it is wrong. I Cor. 2:11 emphasizes that "Christ is the
only foundation."
2. There is an important distinction in approaches to apologetics: Type A is
the deductive approach based on reason, building proofs from commonly-accepted
axioms. Type B is the approach which only responds to the objections,
misconceptions, and arguments of non-Christian scholars (the acronym ROMANS).
Type A requires building a philosophical foundation under the Faith, which Nick
Wolterstorff calls "foundationalism" and is descendent from Locke's deism. Type
B requires no such assumptions, but just answering objections on a per-case
basis. The latter is a much safer approach philosophically and tactically.
3. There is a lack of statistical data on the success rate of different
approaches to apologetics. The next time you address a church group on science
and faith, ask the group this question: "How many of you came to faith because
A) you were convinced by a series of rational arguments that the Bible is true;
B) you came to Christ because of a personal felt need, at a low point in your
life or some such attraction to Him." I would like to learn of your results,
but I suspect I know the answer already.
Paul Arveson, Research Physicist
Code 724, NSWC, Bethesda, MD 20084
73367.1236@compuserve.com arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil
(301) 227-3831 (W) (301) 227-1914 (FAX) (301) 816-9459 (H)