Re: apologetics
Murphy (gmurphy@imperium.net)
Mon, 23 Sep 1996 11:43:29 -0400Paul Arveson wrote:
>
> This discussion on the function of apologetics has been fascinating. It is
> great to read the thoughts of others and realize that they have the same
> concerns as mine.
>
> 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)
Just adding one point: I think that anybody who wants to be
involved in apologetics ought to read Pascal's _Pensees_ - which isn't
to say that he got it all right! His dubious attitude toward natural
theology should especially be noted.
George Murphy