Hello Everyone,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David How can this be if the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge? |
Two things: (1) I am not sure what you understand this verse to convey. There are multitudes who have some type of real knowledge yet do not fear God. Romans 1 seems to teach this. It is why the wrath of God has been revealed. These men know something of God (real knowledge), but fail to honor Him as God (at the very least they lack proper fear). As such, I doubt that the above quote means that before you can have any knowledge whatsoever you must fear God. (2) My statement was made within the context of Bahnsen’s two-step approach, and should be evaluated within that context. I particularly enjoy using the argument from induction (the future being like the past) when confronted with the atheist worldview. The atheist does not have the ontological foundation to account for induction. Yet, the Islamic worldview does. As such, I would use a different approach with an Islamist.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Patrick The unbeliever must concede that the world is the way God made it to be, if he is going to make sense out of any of it. |
I tend to stay away from such broad assertions. It is a different thing to defend this claim in a dynamic encounter with one who is committed not to make such a concession.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Neopatriarch Personally, I believe that Bahnsen is right when he says there are only two alternatives: autonomy and theonomy. |
I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate in some objective manner that the Islamic worldview is a worldview based in human autonomy. Of course, one might define ‘autonomy’ in some limited, tautological manner – such as, "all non-Christian worldviews". Then it would amount to nothing more than an application of the law of non-contradiction: There are only two alternatives: Christianity (A) and non-Christianity (non-A). Another possibility would be to claim that Islam is simply a Christian heresy. Of course, this smacks of special pleading even though in some sense this is probably true.
My approach in any apologetic encounter is to try and be gracious, humble and present a well thought out argument. I no longer make wide, sweeping generalizations, nor attempt to persuade
via sharp rhetoric. I try to acknowledge good points when they are made, and I try to admit when I do not have an answer. I try to genuinely care for the other individual. I pray that God would give me a heart of compassion for them, and that God would open the eyes of their understanding. I pray that God would use me as a means of grace torwards the individual for His glory. The assumption being made is that no matter how well thoughtout an argument is, if God in His sovereignty does not move on their heart, then they will not be converted. Also, I always try to share how beautiful Christ is to me - and what a wonderful salvation He offers to all who believe. In fact, presenting a passionate, vibrant picture of Jesus Christ as painted in the Scriptures and how He has graciously delt with me often has more of an impact than my most eloquent argument. (The main means of conversion is the preached Word.) These are things I have learned after years of engaging in apologetics of one sort or another. I love talking about and debating method, but the longer I practice apologetics, the less important method seems to be.
Brian