Posted on 04/25/2005 5:54:00 AM PDT by logos
John Frame, professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in California, believes Schaeffer's most important contribution was his ability to bring the full spectrum of reality into the apologetic arena. From biology to business, philosophy to physics, ecology to engineering, Schaeffer consistently displayed remarkable flexibility and versatility in his quest to meet a wide range of people on their own turf.
Schaeffer firmly believed that apologetics must be a person-relative enterprise. Each individual is unique, so no single argument will work with everybody. This is undoubtedly a poignant word in light of our highly diverse culture. We can be sure that a canned apologetic that largely ignores personal considerations will stall more often than not. What we need now more than ever is a nonmechanical method, one that can be tailored to the specific needs and interests of each individual.
Here again, the cumulative case approach is well-suited to meet this need. It is an inherently flexible model that provides for a good deal of creativity and adaptation. As we have seen, this approach is much like assembling a jigsaw puzzle. There is only one ultimate pattern, but a variety of angles from which construction can begin. With one person we might start at the bottom, in which case a landscape will naturally emerge first. With someone else we might start from above, in which case a cluster of clouds and a vivid blue sky will initially appear. Ultimately, however, despite the direction from which we start, all the pieces will need to be set in place if we are to be thoroughly converted and the complete picture is to crystallize. Such a model clearly offers the flexibility and versatility needed to forge a compassionate, person-relative apologetic for the twenty-first century.
.
What is needed today is apologetics without political interests.
I strongly agree with the need for flexibility in approach. But to do this, it is very important to understand the language of the "target".
For instance, if one begins from the aspect of philosophy but doesn't understand the terminology, he may lose credibility and thus do more harm than good.
Perhaps then, if one needs to approach from an aspect where he is unsure of his footing in the language, he might want to co-journey with a target one-on-one - both sharing understanding along the way. This way he can learn both the language and the objection and the target, being a contributor to the quest, has a vested interest in the conclusion.
What is needed is Apologetics with courtesy.
Paul must have understood this twenty-first century apologetic. :)
I Corinthians 9:22
...to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
We are living apologists, modeling what is truth to us. How are we perceived?
No, just an observation from some of the discussions on this forum. We need to remember that systems of theology and/or apologetics are just that, man's devised systems and we should respect the fact that not all will agree with our particular system. That does not mean that we don't agree on salvation by faith alone in the finished work of the Lord. But, we can agree to disagree in a civil manner on the order in which that salvation takes place and the role we play, if any, in it.
Civility is the diplomacy that staves off arms in the absence of love for an enemy.
Civility, then, assumes that we are human before we are orthodox (a strange tension, which certainly Schaeffer spoke about and also estranged some. Lewis speaks of the Tao)
And civility has its limitations. The best politicians know this, of course, as do the "best" apologetes. A lie can be persuasive when it's spoken softly by a gentleman who remembers your name.
But don't you think "courtesy" carries with it respect and consideration for the other person, whereas "civility" is a cultural construct, i.e., an epithet, spoken in jest, would be entertaining in a civil way whereas it would not be courteous since it is made at the expense of the other person.
So instead of starting the debate with "Only a fool would disagree..", we would say "In all do respect.."
That's a fact, cornelis. Among the "radicals," a lie is considered a useful and quite legitimate tool, for their ends justify such means. The unsuspecting naive can get really rooked by this brand of "apologetics." I imagine the only safety we have from such subversive attack is firm reliance on the Truth of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.
It's tough when the civil people know this and demand courtesy when instead justice is required. Justice and mercy don't easily embrace.
Courtesy is part of the inventory of a believer that is never depleted since it flows naturally from the implanted new life. The hinderance is our decision to self protect rather than trusting God, then we become gods to decide who is deserving of our consideration. Let the world demand of us courtesy. It is our privilege to give them what they don't deserve since we have received what we didn't deserve.
My problem is not with the world demanding but our refusal to be courteous, let alone loving, to one another in discussing the things of the Lord.
With regard to civility:
"Let the heavens rejoice,
Let the earth be glad"
Little Isabela Margarita was born at 11:30 P.M. last night and I am a grandfather and doing fine, thank you. Oh, and mom and the baby Isabela are fine also..
'Tis a great day indeed! Congratulations, gramps!
CONGRATULATIONS!!!! God bless Mom and Baby Isabela!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.