A Christ Centered Approach to Apologetics

[OzSpen]

Under the rule of the Soviets, Baptists and Pentecostals were tolerated. In fact, there is still the Baptist Union and the Pentecostal Union to which Baptist and Pentecostal pastors belong and are paid by the state to oversee their congregations and will receive a pension when they retire. I met one Baptist pastor while in Russia. The government sent him to Germany for seminary.

I suspect that the JWs were picked out because the Orthodox church once again is allowed to make comments to the government and probably recommended that, since they were not trinitarian, they should be banned. There are also Mormon and Scientology missionaries in Russia as well as a wide range of evangelicals.

Greece has had a law banning all proselytizing in their country. They are Greek Orthodox and everything else is heretical. (Except of course, communism and socialism and atheism which run rampant.)

jim

Sounds like quite a bit of inconsistency here for the Soviet Union and its approach to religion.

If they ban the JWs for being non-trinitarian, that also should apply to the Mormons, Scientology and a string of other cults.

That Greek situation also is one of hypocrisy. Laws against proselytism also apply in Russia.

Oz

 

[ezra]

Apologetics is a discipline of defending the faith (in this case the Christian faith). What I want to explore is how that is to be done in the right way.

There is a formal way, and a less formal way as I understand it. Less formal is what we do here I suppose although more formal approaches may be used. The question for the group is, how ought we to conduct ourselves in a defense of what we believe to be true? What is the best way that is Christ honoring?

I'm of the opinion that this forum is in need of this type of discussion AND, starting with ME, we can all benefit from examining our approach and modeling it after the Spirit of our Lord.

thoughts?

thoughts hmm we went from Apologetics to civil religious rights of j,w in Russia

 

[OzSpen]

thoughts hmm we went from Apologetics to civil religious rights of j,w in Russia

ezra,

Defending the rights of freedom of religion in any society is part of my responsibility as a Christ-centred cultural apologist. There is no paradox in discussing civil religious rights under the topic of Christ-centred apologetics.

I recommend a read of Albert Mohler Jr 2015. We Cannot Be Silent. Nashville, Tennessee: Nelson Books.

Oz

 

[ezra]

ezra,

Defending the rights of freedom of religion in any society is part of my responsibility as a Christ-centred cultural apologist. There is no paradox in discussing civil religious rights under the topic of Christ-centred apologetics.

I recommend a read of Albert Mohler Jr 2015. We Cannot Be Silent. Nashville, Tennessee: Nelson Books.

Oz

we our selves can not change russia just like we our selves can do nothing for china or any other nation that rejects Christianity. personally i do not consider j.w as Christians as they are a work based faith. all though i do accept there right to exist as God will remove the tares in the harvest . what can be done is pray for them

 

[Jim Parker]

If they ban the JWs for being non-trinitarian, that also should apply to the Mormons, Scientology and a string of other cults.

That was a guess on my part.

That Greek situation also is one of hypocrisy.

More like schizophrenia. There are many people who think that they can be both a Christian and a communist at the same time.

 

[OzSpen]

we our selves can not change russia just like we our selves can do nothing for china or any other nation that rejects Christianity. personally i do not consider j.w as Christians as they are a work based faith. all though i do accept there right to exist as God will remove the tares in the harvest . what can be done is pray for them

You've missed my point. Christ-centred apologetics includes defending freedom of religion in any culture. I can do somethings to influence Russia and China. I will not be silent when they abuse human rights, freedom, and freedom of religion.

I'll write to my Prime Minister, visit with my local MP, write letters-to-the-editors to defend freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Of course it will allow the Mormons, JWs and evangelical Christians to go about evangelising. But it's up to us to expose the false doctrines of the cults.

That's all in my job description as a Christ-centred apologist.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

That was a guess on my part.

More like schizophrenia. There are many people who think that they can be both a Christian and a communist at the same time.

Jim,

Christian & Communist?

Seems to me that many people don't understand the fundamental atheistic belief of Communism:

Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."

Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

In 1955, Chinese communist leader Zhou Enlai declared, "We Communists are atheists". In 2014, the Communist Party of China reaffirmed that members of their party must be atheist (Atheism and Communism).​

Christianity and true Communism are diametrically opposed and any Christ-centred apologist should be exposing this contradiction.

Oz

 

[reba]

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you reba. I had a whoop-up time with the seniors' group I was leading (1 Cor 14:33-35: Should women be shut down in ministry?) from 10am.

For the evening meal, I had it with my daughter and her family. Lovely noodles, pork cubes (very tender), sauce, and salad.

My daughter knows I enjoy Darrell Lea Rocky Road, so I received a packet like this:



Thank you again for your thoughtfulness.

Blessings,
Oz

 

[Silmarien]

Papa Zoom,

Promoters of one kind of apologetics generally critique the other main approaches.

I'll start with some emphases of Classical Apologetics.

Norman Geisler, who is a supporter of Classical Apologetics, states that this approach stresses: (a) arguments for the existence of God, and (b) the historical evidence supporting the truth of Christianity. His view is that this model has 2 basic steps:

1. Theistic arguments for the existence of God, apart from an appeal to special revelation in the Bible. If God exists, the logical inference is that 'miracles are possible; indeed the greatest miracle of all, creation, is possible'. The credibility of miracles leads to the second step ...
   
2. 'Confirmed historical evidence substantiates the truth. The New Testament documents are shown to be historically reliable.... These documents reveal that Jesus claimed to be, and was miraculously proven to be, the Son of God.... From this it is often argued that Jesus confirmed the Old Testament to be the Word of God and promised the same for the New Testament' (Geisler 1999:41-42).

Geisler lists these people as supporters of Classical Apologetics: Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and in modern times, Winfried Corduan, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, John Gerstner, Stuart Hackett, Peter Kreeft, C S Lewis, J P Moreland, John Locke, William Paley, R C Sproul, and B B warfield.

Perhaps that will open up further discussion.

Oz

Works consulted
Geisler, N L 1999. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

As a former philosophy student, I'll point out that Classical Apologetics made me an atheist.

The argument from beauty eventually won me back (Dostoevsky), though I didn't realize that was what it was at the time. So... know your audience, I suppose.

chessman,

That looks like a good read from Os Guinness. I find many of his writings to be penetrating in analysis.

What relevant questions would you ask to skeptic to try to persuade him or her?

Not only modernists, but also postmodernists, don't believe in Truth. It's difficult to get past the truth that you and I are interacting on a Christian forum. Is it true that the Supreme Court Rules to Criminalize the Activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia?

Oz

As the resident postmodernist, I actually do believe in Truth. What I don't trust is Reason. I draw a sharp distinction between objective reality and reality as perceived. As humans, our experiences are so shaped by our biology, psychology, culture, and personal history as to make them ultimately subjective. I will, of course, go full Kantian and say that I don't believe that the physical world truly is as our senses perceive it to be, so I'm as likely to fight you on the color orange as I am on the concept of the Trinity. I've come to reluctantly accept them both as useful, though, so my little mustard seed has grown ever so slightly.

Happy birthday, btw!

 

[OzSpen]

As the resident postmodernist, I actually do believe in Truth. What I don't trust is Reason.

Happy birthday, btw!

Silmarien,

Thanks for your best wishes.

Can I trust your reasoning in the post to which I'm replying?

Would this be an accurate understanding of your view of postmodernism?

Postmodern Worldview – A Worldview of Contingency
In the postmodern worldview, everything is contingent; nothing is fixed. There are several implications of confronting reality this way.

First, reality is ultimately unknowable. Our “situatedness” prevents us from directly accessing the real world or having true knowledge about it. This is not to say that the real world is not there (though some would suggest this), only that we can never shed our perspectives to access it. No one has a “god’s eye view” of reality; therefore no one can claim to have the truth about it. Stanley Fish describes this dilemma this way:

Moreover, not only is there no one who could spot a transcendent truth if it happened to pass through the neighborhood, but it is difficult even to say what one would be like. Of course we would know what it would not be like; it would not speak to any particular condition, or be identified with any historical production, or be formulated in the terms of any national, ethnic, racial, economic, or class traditions.”2​

We are trapped in our situatedness. There are no foundations that are not themselves contingent from which to build a certain and agreed-upon body of knowledge. Knowledge really comes down to one’s perspective: we never really have the facts; there is only interpretation.

Second, truth and knowledge are constructions of language. They reflect the perspective of the one who is claiming, but should not be confused as a statement of fact about actual reality. Of course, if truth merely reflects one’s perspective and does not actually represent anything about objective reality, it cannot be absolute. This is an inescapable conclusion of the postmodern worldview: there is no absolute truth; there are only “truths.”

It is important to note that postmodernism does not necessarily argue that each person has their own truth, but that our perspectives on what is true are shaped largely by the communities, or cultures, we find ourselves in. Each community constructs, through language, its own story of the world. No story is more true than another (since all stories are valid); but, in fact, truth is produced by the narrative of a community. “Truths,” then, are not propositional statements about reality, but rather narrative realities for a particular group; and every group is distinguished by their particular use of language (source: All About ... Worldview).​

Happy hunting!

Oz

 

[Silmarien]

The first part, yes. The second one, not so much, except in that language molds the way people view the world.

I don't think that reason is useless, per se. Just that it doesn't escape the circular loop that is the human understanding of things. Which isn't a problem, it just means that arguments from rationalism are going to bring out the contrary philosopher in me.

 

[OzSpen]

The first part, yes. The second one, not so much, except in that language molds the way people view the world.

I don't think that reason is useless, per se. Just that it doesn't escape the circular loop that is the human understanding of things. Which isn't a problem, it just means that arguments from rationalism are going to bring out the contrary philosopher in me.

Silmarien,

We can be rational in our discussions, as we need to be, without being supporters of the worldview of rationalism.

By rationalism I mean the principle or worldview that accepts reason as the supreme authority in life in all matters . In philosophy, it is the teaching that reason is the source of knowledge, independent of experience and religious belief.

Rationalistic theology is the doctrine that human reason, without the help of divine revelation, is the sole guide to determine religious truth.

To be rational in our discussions, I mean we are able to reason or be logical in what we write to each other. It is associated with thinking sensibly and logically.

What is logical? It is whatever is represented by clear, sound reasoning. I trust we are doing that in our dialogue on this topic with the sentences we write.

So one can be rational in expressing on any topic, without being a supporter of rationalism.

Oz

 

[Silmarien]

Silmarien,

We can be rational in our discussions, as we need to be, without being supporters of the worldview of rationalism.

By rationalism I mean the principle or worldview that accepts reason as the supreme authority in life in all matters . In philosophy, it is the teaching that reason is the source of knowledge, independent of experience and religious belief.

Rationalistic theology is the doctrine that human reason, without the help of divine revelation, is the sole guide to determine religious truth.

To be rational in our discussions, I mean we are able to reason or be logical in what we write to each other. It is associated with thinking sensibly and logically.

What is logical? It is whatever is represented by clear, sound reasoning. I trust we are doing that in our dialogue on this topic with the sentences we write.

So one can be rational in expressing on any topic, without being a supporter of rationalism.

Oz

I don't disagree with you, Oz. (For once!) I studied philosophy in school; I know what rationalism is. The point that I'm trying to make is that approaching a postmodernist with rationalist arguments like the ontological argument can be a mistake. Not all of us are postmodern because we think it's cool! If you ask me if I think morality is objectively true, I'm going to say that it's wired into our psychology, but that since it's impossible to escape the human condition, it's also impossible to know for sure whether it's objectively true outside of human experience. It's not a fun thing to think, since it puts me at the edge of nihilism, but I cannot escape it. Not by myself, at least.

Now, I think a really interesting question to ask a postmodernist is how you can know for sure that objective truth doesn't exist. If we're trapped within our worldviews, how can we postmodernists make sweeping claims about the nature of reality? From a postmodern perspective, I find atheism to be an extremely arrogant stance--"I'm trapped within my worldview, unable to grasp objective truth, and yet I'm going to claim that human reality is the only reality." That's trying to have it both ways.

Christianity is very interesting from a postmodern point of view. It's the only religion that involves the unknowable becoming knowable, the only one that really touches the problem of humanity being trapped within its own limited reality. Why is that impossible? I see no reason to think it is, and for those of us who are theistically inclined, the only alternative is making up your own concept of God. I've noticed that those of us who go that route tend to end up with noticeably similar concepts, which ties into being shaped by and trapped in our own cultural contexts, which means that there's nothing real there.

So I would say work with postmodern views, don't work against them. Fight us and you'll only annoy us!

 

[OzSpen]

I don't disagree with you, Oz. (For once!) I studied philosophy in school; I know what rationalism is. The point that I'm trying to make is that approaching a postmodernist with rationalist arguments like the ontological argument can be a mistake. Not all of us are postmodern because we think it's cool! If you ask me if I think morality is objectively true, I'm going to say that it's wired into our psychology, but that since it's impossible to escape the human condition, it's also impossible to know for sure whether it's objectively true outside of human experience. It's not a fun thing to think, since it puts me at the edge of nihilism, but I cannot escape it. Not by myself, at least.

Now, I think a really interesting question to ask a postmodernist is how you can know for sure that objective truth doesn't exist. If we're trapped within our worldviews, how can we postmodernists make sweeping claims about the nature of reality? From a postmodern perspective, I find atheism to be an extremely arrogant stance--"I'm trapped within my worldview, unable to grasp objective truth, and yet I'm going to claim that human reality is the only reality." That's trying to have it both ways.

Christianity is very interesting from a postmodern point of view. It's the only religion that involves the unknowable becoming knowable, the only one that really touches the problem of humanity being trapped within its own limited reality. Why is that impossible? I see no reason to think it is, and for those of us who are theistically inclined, the only alternative is making up your own concept of God. I've noticed that those of us who go that route tend to end up with noticeably similar concepts, which ties into being shaped by and trapped in our own cultural contexts, which means that there's nothing real there.

So I would say work with postmodern views, don't work against them. Fight us and you'll only annoy us!

Silmarien,

Before I get to asking you to answer one of your own questions, I'd like for you to share with us where you are on the postmodern spectrum with regard to literature.

As a postmodernist, how would you interpret this from Shakespeare? Macbeth said:

If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly: if the assassination
Could trammel up the consequence, and catch
With his surcease success; that but this blow
Might be the be-all and the end-all here,
But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,
We'ld jump the life to come. But in these cases
We still have judgment here; that we but teach
Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return
To plague the inventor: this even-handed justice
Commends the ingredients of our poison'd chalice
To our own lips. (Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 7)
​

As a postmodernist, how do you interpret this?

The University of Queensland, their student union and the chairman of the Anti-Defamation Commission have all condemned Holocaust denial flyers that have been distributed on campus.

It is understood the flyers, which have also shown up at universities in Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney, have been pinned to noticeboards and put on car windshields.

Dr Melanie O'Brien, an expert in genocide studies from the UQ school of law, said she was disappointed to hear the flyers had made their way to UQ.

"I don't really understand it, because as a researcher I've seen the evidence, I've talked to survivors, I've interviewed survivors, I've watched testimony, I've read testimony of all different genocides and this is not made up," she said.

"The evidence is there, it's there for people to actually see with their own eyes and to hear with their own ears from survivors, and I cannot comprehend how anyone will deny what happened." (source)​

You state: 'I think a really interesting question to ask a postmodernist is how you can know for sure that objective truth doesn't exist'. Is this language consistent with postmodernism?

• 'know for sure';
• 'objective truth'.

You state: 'If you ask me if I think morality is objectively true, I'm going to say that it's wired into our psychology'. So, the Holocaust is morally, objectively true for Hitler because it's wired into his psychology? The slaughter instigated by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, the ISIS terrorists, and the 9/11 terrorists are 'wired into their psychology'. Is that your view? Or am I being too rational?

Are you justifying (as part of your postmodern worldview) the rape of children because it is 'wired into the psychology' of all paedophiles? If it's wired into their psychology, why should we punish them?

Am I being too pointed in my arguments to expose the weaknesses of postmodernism's ideology?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

So I would say work with postmodern views, don't work against them. Fight us and you'll only annoy us!

Silmarien,

I would not do that with paedophiles, Holocaust deniers, the sexually promiscuous who transmit HIV, or atheists, so I won't do it with postmodernists - even postmodern deconstructionists.

Oz

 

[Silmarien]

Before I get to asking you to answer one of your own questions, I'd like for you to share with us where you are on the postmodern spectrum with regard to literature.

As a postmodernist, how would you interpret this from Shakespeare? Macbeth said:

I'm technically an existentialist, but I'd consider it a part of postmodernism. As for literature... I wouldn't interpret a single passage from Shakespeare apart from the context of the work as a whole. Shakespeare's too rich for that. It's been a very long time since I read MacBeth, but I can point out the theme of divine right and the dire consequences of going against it. Now, if you gave me Hamlet with it's proto-existentialist themes, things might get a little bit wild.

Now, if you're asking me about my biblical hermeneutics, I've dropped the liberal theology. It was nonthreatening and what I wanted to hear for a while, but in for a penny, in for a pound.

You state: 'I think a really interesting question to ask a postmodernist is how you can know for sure that objective truth doesn't exist'. Is this language consistent with postmodernism?

• 'know for sure';
• 'objective truth'.

That's precisely my point. Saying that there's no such thing as objective truth is an objective truth claim. Postmodernists should at most be silent on the issue of truth; they shouldn't deny it.

You state: 'If you ask me if I think morality is objectively true, I'm going to say that it's wired into our psychology'. So, the Holocaust is morally, objectively true for Hitler because it's wired into his psychology? The slaughter instigated by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, the ISIS terrorists, and the 9/11 terrorists are 'wired into their psychology'. Is that your view? Or am I being too rational?

Are you justifying (as part of your postmodern worldview) the rape of children because it is 'wired into the psychology' of all paedophiles? If it's wired into their psychology, why should we punish them?

Am I being too pointed in my arguments to expose the weaknesses of postmodernism's ideology?

You're operating under the assumption that a postmodern approach makes me a moral relativist. I very much reject moral relativism, so please refrain from strawman attacks on positions I don't even hold. For me, the question isn't a matter of ethics but metaethics--I do think morality is more than a social construct, but where does it come from?

I say that it's wired into our psychology because every aspect of what it means to be human is mediated through our brains. I was doing a bit of reading into the neuroscience of spirituality, and came across an argument that the human brain has evolved in such a way as to favor the development of ever more complex positive emotions--a combination that would eventually lead to morality as we understand it. Now, I'd certainly like to think that advanced intelligence, wherever it might develop, goes hand in hand with the development of a moral ideal that looks similar to our own, but I can't really refute the atheist claim that all we are, including our morality, is a cosmic accident. Does the fact that we care so much about love and justice mean that love and justice are universal constants, or does it mean that mammals randomly started developing in a way that would favor such values? I see no way of reaching outside the reality of human existence to answer that question. This doesn't mean that morality isn't real for me or for anyone else. Obviously it is. But if you ask me why I think that is, I'm going to end up with at least two possible answers, and you're only going to like one of them.

It's not a position you need to argue against, because I'm fully aware that every other answer leads straight into a nihilistic abyss. I've dipped my feet into that particular pool long enough to know that there really is nothing but damnation there, though I'm only really recognizing it now. Want conviction of sin? Try, "by denying yourself as made in God's image, you've denied your own humanity." If you're too busy fighting the postmodernism to take a close look at it, you're going to miss that entirely. I've been doing the whole "repent and ask for help" thing, and I think I actually am getting it, but pretending that the tattered shreds of my epistemology shouldn't be a complication is absurd.

Granted, I'm not sure to what degree this is a normal for postmodernists. We existentialists really are a breed apart, and nobody else turns on the tortured intellectualism in quite the same way. But insisting on somehow debating me into accepting that morality is a universal concept pointing to God ignores the fact that I've already backed myself into a corner that screams human helplessness and the need for divine grace in making sense of anything.

Silmarien,

I would not do that with paedophiles, Holocaust deniers, the sexually promiscuous who transmit HIV, or atheists, so I won't do it with postmodernists - even postmodern deconstructionists.

Oz

Thanks for equating the way I think with pedophilia. With that approach, good luck talking to any of us.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm technically an existentialist, but I'd consider it a part of postmodernism. As for literature... I wouldn't interpret a single passage from Shakespeare apart from the context of the work as a whole. Shakespeare's too rich for that. It's been a very long time since I read MacBeth, but I can point out the theme of divine right and the dire consequences of going against it. Now, if you gave me Hamlet with it's proto-existentialist themes, things might get a little bit wild.

Now, if you're asking me about my biblical hermeneutics, I've dropped the liberal theology. It was nonthreatening and what I wanted to hear for a while, but in for a penny, in for a pound.

That's precisely my point. Saying that there's no such thing as objective truth is an objective truth claim. Postmodernists should at most be silent on the issue of truth; they shouldn't deny it.

You're operating under the assumption that a postmodern approach makes me a moral relativist. I very much reject moral relativism, so please refrain from strawman attacks on positions I don't even hold. For me, the question isn't a matter of ethics but metaethics--I do think morality is more than a social construct, but where does it come from?

I say that it's wired into our psychology because every aspect of what it means to be human is mediated through our brains. I was doing a bit of reading into the neuroscience of spirituality, and came across an argument that the human brain has evolved in such a way as to favor the development of ever more complex positive emotions--a combination that would eventually lead to morality as we understand it. Now, I'd certainly like to think that advanced intelligence, wherever it might develop, goes hand in hand with the development of a moral ideal that looks similar to our own, but I can't really refute the atheist claim that all we are, including our morality, is a cosmic accident. Does the fact that we care so much about love and justice mean that love and justice are universal constants, or does it mean that mammals randomly started developing in a way that would favor such values? I see no way of reaching outside the reality of human existence to answer that question. This doesn't mean that morality isn't real for me or for anyone else. Obviously it is. But if you ask me why I think that is, I'm going to end up with at least two possible answers, and you're only going to like one of them.

It's not a position you need to argue against, because I'm fully aware that every other answer leads straight into a nihilistic abyss. I've dipped my feet into that particular pool long enough to know that there really is nothing but damnation there, though I'm only really recognizing it now. Want conviction of sin? Try, "by denying yourself as made in God's image, you've denied your own humanity." If you're too busy fighting the postmodernism to take a close look at it, you're going to miss that entirely. I've been doing the whole "repent and ask for help" thing, and I think I actually am getting it, but pretending that the tattered shreds of my epistemology shouldn't be a complication is absurd.

Granted, I'm not sure to what degree this is a normal for postmodernists. We existentialists really are a breed apart, and nobody else turns on the tortured intellectualism in quite the same way. But insisting on somehow debating me into accepting that morality is a universal concept pointing to God ignores the fact that I've already backed myself into a corner that screams human helplessness and the need for divine grace in making sense of anything.

Thanks for equating the way I think with pedophilia. With that approach, good luck talking to any of us.

Silmarien,

Thank you for your comprehensive explanation of your PoV. I do not have the time to engage in discussion on many of these points as I disagree with many of them on the basis of research.

You didn't tell me how you as a postmodernist would read Hamlet as literature or how you as a postmodernist would read the article from the Brisbane Times as journalism.

You stated: 'I can't really refute the atheist claim that all we are, including our morality, is a cosmic accident'.

So are you saying that Hitler's morality and the morality of a murderer or paedophile are a 'cosmic accident' and nothing can be done to correct/change such morality?

You stated: 'Thanks for equating the way I think with pedophilia. With that approach, good luck talking to any of us'. That is NOT what I stated. That's your straw man construct of what I wrote. Please report accurately on what I stated. We cannot go places in our discussion when you use this kind of fallacious reasoning.

You didn't explain how you would read Macbeth and the article from the Brisbane Times as a postmodern deconstructionist apart from reading it in context. Is reader-response part of your deconstructionist paradigm?

Oz

 

[Nathan]

I've been trying to follow along here, but somehow we diverted away from Christ centered to not even speaking of Christ in apologetics.

Am I missing something?

 

[OzSpen]

I've been trying to follow along here, but somehow we diverted away from Christ centered to not even speaking of Christ in apologetics.

Am I missing something?

Nathan,

A Christ-centred approach to apologetics has to deal with the issues of the day that are blocking people from coming to Christ and seeing Christ in all his glory. It deals with what Paul had to face at the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-34).

Or are you saying that when non-Christians raise these topics that I am not being Christ-centred in responding as I've done?

• absolute truth,
• existentialism,
• postmodern deconstructionism,
• nihilistic abyss,
• Etc

There are many philosophies from the non-Christian world that clutter the way on the path to Christ. I, as a Christian apologist, have to be sensitive in how I approach dealing with the 'clutter'. I've been trying to do that, but you are interpreting that as being against Christ-centred apologetics. It's not.


Oz