But it is not a metaphysical system. You will not find within it complete accounts of phenomena, nor will you find satisfactory answers to every question. What you will find are all things necessary to life and Godliness.Well, we use the term 'systematic theology' in the sense that it IS a system. I agree that scripture contains metaphysical propositions, but in doing systematic theology you are organizing God's revelation into a 'system'.
There has to be some point of contact between God and man, between creator and creature. There is no analogy without incarnation.They knew of God from CREATION around them, and the law that was on their hearts. I am not sure what you mean when you say that God needed to 'bridge' the creator/creature distinction.
I'm not talking about making people uncomfortable, but about cornering people. Cornering has to do with the tactic of treating your interlocutor as an opponent rather than saying with God "come, let us reason together." You can never allow yourself to succumb to the temptation to be adversarial in your apologetic. When you try to corner someone, you have allowed yourself to forget that the goal is to win the person, not to score points. Trying to back someone into a corner doesn't work for the simple reason that in any argument (not just apologetic), that is the position where a person is least likely to be convinced.You put them into a corner logically (you can also do so 'emotionally'). Presenting the gospel is not bullying, but if you aren't making the person 'uncomfortable' in some sense, you are doing it wrong.
Oh dear, then no human has ever had a successful argument.As Dr. James White would put it: "inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument".
By leading you around in circles in your attempt to deconstruct him.You assume that he will just tie me up in a semantic maze. I would like you to show me how he would do that
True, but a system may be apparently consistent in both regards, while still not actually consistent.Yes, one can be consistently wrong, but again, any system must be consistent INTERNALLY and EXTERNALLY.
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that he is in an attitude of rebellion. No in the sense that he is not being disingenuous given that he really believes his own view to be the truth. In order to understand him, you must do so on his own terms, not on your assumptions about what he thinks. You have to read him fairly.So you honestly believe that an unbeliever can use reason and logic from a non-rebellious attitude? As a rebel, his will, emotions, and mind are ALL enslaved to sin.
Reductionism is as unhelpful when used by Christian apologists as at any other time.what we're concerned with are not every detail of a worldview, but the basic assumptions that make the worldview.
Other than their rejection of Christianity, this is debatable.all non-Christian worldviews have certain things in common,