Apologetics on the Areopagus - Timothy S. Yoder

it's a privilege to be here with you and to here in this special Chapel and to be a part of things I am as dr. Fung said a newcomer to the Dallas seminary family just starting last year and and this is my first time on this campus and so so thank you for for the invitation and for coming and for being here and I look forward to sharing some thoughts with you on the nature of apologetics we have some interesting things planned I want to speak from acts 17 and and then we'll have a chance for some questions so I I trust that you will be preparing some good questions I am a philosopher and and the anytime a philosopher stands in front of somebody that all the other philosophers in the room make it their goal to try to ask the hardest questions that that the person is stumped so I expect you to try to come up with hard questions to to stumped me as best you can that's that's kind of that's kind of the game so all right so as dr. Fong mentioned in in the bio at least and I my my fizz over here by the way iris Lisa we love to travel we love missions we both been missionaries at least before we were married we were both missionaries Lisa was in Japan for a year I was in Russia for three years and then we and we got married about 13 years ago and and so we also have led missions trips to Macedonia and to Italy we've we've served together in India one summer and so it's great and so recently not on missions trip but just for travel we went to Greece and it had been one of my long-term goals to go to Greece and to see to be in Athens and to see the place where Socrates and Plato and Aristotle walked I've taught philosophy for a while and to be there in Athens to go to the Agora where Socrates taught and to to see that place was great it's like you could go to the next slide there's a picture of me on the Areopagus which means Mars Hill and some of your Bibles in acts 17 so there I am I was actually scared to death that rock was very very slippery from years and years and years of tourists are walking on it those rocks were so slick I was sure I was going to tumble off and end down in the in the valley below but it didn't happen fortunately but there behind me is the Acropolis not the best side of the Acropolis but you can still see it and and that's the site where Paul gave his famous address and so we were there checking it out and it's a great place to stand and see the city that that view is I think sort of taken I didn't take that picture on the bottom but that's that's the view of the city of Athens from that area and so as I was there and as he came climbed off the hill Lisa and I were leaving to go on to our next sightseeing adventure and I heard there was a bunch it was a bunch of tourists there and a person talking and I said walk past I realized from what the person was saying that he was the pastor and this was a church group and so I just kind of slowed down a little bit to hear what he had to say you know how we do that all right just to hear what he had to say and the first thing that I heard him say is is this he said just because something is mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean that we should do it and he gave the example of the Gideons fleece and so I think he's probably right there there are some things that the Bible mentions that we're not really supposed to do right his next statement clarified this little bit he said what we need to do is to see how the Bible interprets or evaluates what it says so ok fair enough I think that's some solid hermeneutics there and and so he was going on in that that kind of a vein and then he said and now it says and he was turning out to the acts 17 story because they're they're right here at the at the at the Areopagus he says and it says in the text that only a few were saved and then and then that was that was the last that I heard and I moved on at that point and I don't know what he was going to say but but I have heard others make this same point and go on to criticize Paul's sermon in acts 17 and say that it was a bit of a failure because Paul well he made some mistakes and and this interpretation goes something like this Paul of course was a great missionary and and preacher but no one of course except Jesus perfect and so when he got to Athens he was so enamored of philosophy and the electric culture that he tried to incorporate this into his sermon and so he spoke of the unknown God he cited their prophets or their poets I'm sorry and he tried to philosophize with the philosophers it was an utter failure this interpretation goes they mocked him and only a few believed he never played at a church there and the lesson that we should learn they say is that we should just preach the Bible and avoid philosophy science pop culture any kind of culture and anything that dilutes the biblical message that's what some have said I don't know if that pastor was gonna go that way but but some have said these sorts of things it's my conviction that this kind of isolationist or even fundamentalist approach to ministry witness is the very opposite first of all how Paul operated and secondly how we are supposed to understand ministry and culture and how we're supposed to engage the world in my time today what I would like to do is to present to you a different model an approach to apologetics and ministry that that uses Paul's time in Athens as a as a as a model and to think through how he engaged the world around him and just by the way in case you're wondering about that interpretation and how this how this works it let me give you a quick three three reasons why I think that interpretation of Paul's mission Athens is wrong first of all just because the sermon is not well-received doesn't mean it was a failure otherwise we'd have to say that some of Jesus sermons were failures I don't think we're going to go there okay so that's one two the text doesn't say that Paul failed the text in fact says that yes some mocked but also says that some wanted to hear more and it says in a way that I think is positive they were intrigued and it does say that some believed so so at that I think a fair assessment is that the reaction was was mixed and thirdly the text says I think the small response maybe has says more about the hearts of the people there than does about Paul's methods so anyway enough for that I see in Paul's sermon or his message or his address a rather a brilliant adaptation of the culture and philosophy of the day for the purposes of apologetics it sets the stage for a consideration of the nature of apologetics and it also serves as an example hydrogen power Jetix let's let's go on and talk a bit about apologetics and and I have a few points for points the first is that the word apologetics you probably already know this comes from the Greek word apologia and it means the defence right it doesn't mean oh I'm really sorry that I'm a Christian what I have to share these things with you know it doesn't mean anything about about being sorry right it's rather it's the word defense and in the ancient world one of the great examples is Socrates who had to give a defense of his life and philosophy before the Greeks and ultimately was convicted and executed for his work as a philosopher and play one of plato's great writings is Socrates apologia his defense at his trial okay so in that same sense we are we are we are told in first Peter to give a defense to be prepared at all times to give a defense of the faith to I don't think that apologetics is so much a field of study as I think it's an application of what we learned to the task apologetics is more a thing that we do a task a goal an action we are to defend the faith we're not just simply to study apologetics but we are to do it I think apologetics is best understood as taking all that we learn as seminary students and as Christians and as people you know engaged in ministry all that we learn of from certainly the Bible and theology but also philosophy and science and culture and use that to make a defense and so apologetics is is an application I think if you would like to talk more about that you could ask a question about that later on I will be happy to talk more I think apologetics is more than just simple evangelism again the relation between evangelism and apologetics is a complicated one I think that they overlap but I think that they are also different because because I think apologetics is something that we can do with fellow believers for instance I would I would say in some senses that I'm doing apologetics with you as I'm trying to inform you and and instruct you in the ancient philosophy and some of the sorts of things and and so trying to Institute develop and strengthen your faith if we have classes in our churches that explore say philosophical reasons for the faith or scientific reasons for the gospel or or historical reasons that we're doing apologetics even we even though we all might be Christians in the room so I think apologetics has a broader dimension than perhaps sometimes we think a fourth point here is that the character of the apologist is tremendously important I had a colleague just just last year at here at DTS stopped me in the parking lot and and say and he was trying to I think see see how well I could think of my feet because we were talking about apologetics a little bit and he said I think apologetics is ruining the church and I wasn't quite sure where he was going with that and I thought for a moment and and I thought well maybe what he means is is this and I told him this statement which is what I teach my students the character of the apologist is is is just about as important as the content of the apologetics right we we don't we just because we're doing apologetics doesn't give us a free pass to be mean or angry or arrogant or belligerent or any of those sorts of things no that's not what that's not how Christ was and that's not how we're supposed to be we we how we do our apologetics is as important as what we say and I think that's very important too often apologetics is gotten a really bad reputation for you know you may be maybe you have some caricatures in your head of you know the guy on the sidewalk with the same witchboard Turner burn right the end is near you know or the angry debater in a bad suit you know you know spraying facts and who knows what else in his audience right no no no that's that's not that's not that's not really apologetics apologetics is it can be passionate and not saying that we shouldn't we shouldn't believe what we what we believe it and engage passionately and we can sometimes even be you know make an argument but we should do it in love we should the goal should always be to end as friends and if we end as friends then I think we are doing what Peter tells us on the next slide it's got that verse from first Peter that I've mentioned a couple of times already and this is kind of the the the headline verse for apologetics first Peter 3:15 always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have it's a mouthful it's a long sentence I'm not going to to parse it or diagram it but but the idea here is to be to be ready always to give an account or a reason for why you believe you never know when it's gonna happen I've had apologetic conversations on air on an airplane I've had apologetic conversations in the 7-eleven I've had a pot you know and you never know when you're gonna have a chance to interact with somebody and we need to be prepared one more thing about the nature of apologetics that I want to talk about is this distinction between positive and negative I think this is really important I won't go too far in it because I want to get to two acts 17 and and and and and lunch of course is in the offing as well too but but a positive and negative apologetics by the way this doesn't mean good and bad apologetics that's not what I mean at all right both of these are things that we should do the positive and the negative here's what I mean let's start with with the negative apologetics negative apologetics I think is when we answer objections right people people will object and they'll say well science tells us that you know there really isn't a God at all or or science you know or obviously miracles right that's that's you know people used to believe in miracles but we don't anymore so so Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead and you know or or the Bible you know it's just a human book full of lots of errors and so all kinds of objections and when we try to respond to those and answer them we're doing what I call negative apologetics where we are responding we're trying to to clean up some of the mistakes or or answer some of the objections right sometimes people have mistaken notions about what the faith is well Christian to be a Christian means you have to be perfect right no actually it does it means the opposite and and those sorts of things people have misunderstandings all religions are basically the same actually they're not right and so when we work through those things we're engaging in negative apologetics positive apologetics on the other hand is when we try to make a case for the things that we believe instead of you know of them taking the ground in them starting with an objection or with with a mistaken notion and us responding right positive apologetics begins with us as we try to make a case for what it is we believe here are a few reasons why I think that the resurrection is actually a really credible historical event here are maybe here's maybe a philosophical argument for the existence of God here's why I think that the Bible is a book that's unlike any other book of in history that's positive apologetics making a case for the things that we believe it might be helpful to think of this in terms of a football team maybe like those Superbowl champion Eagles right in a football team right there is the offense and the defense and they both have the same goal which is to win the game but the offense is trying to advance the ball and score points I think that's like positive apologetics when the defense is on the field they're trying to hold the line and prevent the other team from from getting points right and so their goal is much different in in the in the and how they actually do things but the overall goal is the same to win the game okay and so in that sense I think positive and negative apologetics are both critical we use both we have to respond to the objections and correct the misunderstandings that's negative apologetics but we also have to make a positive case and I think what happens with those caricatures like the angry the angry debater is probably only doing negative apologetics right and and the person that person that did that just says well I just I just believe that Jesus rose from the dead well that's great but that that's only a you know one one part portion of it a not very deep portion of positive politics and what we need is to be equipped with both so we can so that our conversations can be fruitful and and important all right we could say a lot more about that but let's as hasten on I want to I want to talk a little bit about acts 17 so let's let's open our Bibles to Acts 17 and this very famous speech that Paul gives in Athens right having been there I can imagine Paul's arrival in Athens Athens is an amazing city full of statues and temples still is today it was even more so in Paul's day he would have arrived by sea he would have walked up what they call the pan Athenian Way which takes you right into the Agora and the which is the marketplace where there would been lots of people interacting together buying and selling and and doing all kinds of business he would have come right up and seen the Agora I'm seeing the Acropolis on the hill a second century 2nd century BC men buy their placentas notes to all the temples that you can see the temple of Demeter the statues up beside and the gymnasium devoted to Hermes Corps Christ have great temples devoted to Zeus and Athena right some of these still exists on the Acropolis and other places and Paulette said the text says when he walked in in first sixteen he was disgusted let's read a little bit of what of Paul's entrance into Athens in verse 16 while Paul was waiting for them in Athens he was greatly distressed disgusted would be a better translation to see that the city was full of idols so he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the Greek fearing god-fearing Greeks as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happen to be there a group of epicurean and stoic philosophers be in a dispute with him some of them said what does this babble are trying to say others remarked he seems to be advocating foreign gods they said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus in the resurrection then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the areopagus where they said to him we know what you do teaching is that you're presenting what you are bringing some strange ideas to our ears and we want to know what they mean and then Paul's or Luke's little editorial here all the Athenians in the and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking and listening about the latest ideas ok so here's here's the stage so Paul comes in he sees these idols and eventually he his speaking he begins as usual heed us in the synagogue's but his his his address catches detention of these stoic and epicurean philosophers the areopagus by the way refers to that rock that I was standing on that's called the Areopagus but it's also the name of the council and apparently there was a philosophical council that would kind of be the gatekeeper for new ideas and they called Paul and said listen we're teaching these new ideas we'd like to hear something about them it is actually if as a reminder of Socrates right because Socrates was called me for just that similar kind of a council about 400 years before and and so perhaps Luke is hinting that that Hall is like a is like a new Socrates in this context that's an interesting thought so but this it doesn't it doesn't well let's talk a little about these Epicureans and Stoics and you have on the handout that i that i gave you on your chairs a little bit about the Epicureans and the Stoics let me just hit a couple of highlights these are two different groups if you want to you could think about the Sadducees and the Pharisees it's a similar sort of dynamic right to two leading groups in Israel culture they were they were religious thinkers teachers of the law they agreed about some things disagreed about others and they were back and forth the Epicureans and the Stoics were a similar right the Stoics are the majority like the pharisees they ethic used to be the minority like the Sadducees they agreed on some things but they had a number of disagreements the Epicureans were actually a very fascinating group really ahead of their time they sound very much like the contemporary secularists and materialists of our day they denied they denied divine providence they thought that the world could be explained materialistically they even talked about Adams and some of the same way that we talk about Adams and and and so they denied this this role for for God the desire of the Epicureans was to free the people of the religious myths that enslaved them they also believed that our our highest good was simply to to pursue pleasure and not necessarily an all-out hedonism but but to pursue pleasure and not necessarily try to you know pursue an afterlife which they didn't believe existed that's the Epicureans the Stoics were a little bit more their philosophy was it had a little bit more in common with the Christian Christian doctrine they did believe in a God sort of they they believed in the logos right which is which turns up in John chapter 1 this there's kind of pervading rational principle that exists through the world in many in many many ways it's kind of impersonal think sort of like the force in Star Wars right this this this force does this power this principle this rasher principle that they could tap into sometimes the Stoics talked about this as a God as a being there's a it's a large group and it existed for a long time and so there's there's some diversity and what they thought but they so they were they were more favorable to the idea of divinity and Providence and they were also very well known for their ethical Maxim's that that you should you can't control your circumstances but what you can control is how you react to the circumstances so if bad things happen to you if your team loses a Super Bowl or even worse right if you have a loved one that dies or or a family member right you can't you can't control what happens to you but you can control how you feel about that and so the Stoics were we're always advocating that what and that's why we still have this word today stoic all right kind of non emotional very much under control response to the bad things of life and the Stoics were well-known for that okay again much more we could say about them the first encounter though with these with these philosophers didn't go so well right they called Paul a a babble ER the Greek word is on the screen it's a sperm o logos it's a fascinating Greek word as in my understanding it only appears once in the New Testament and it's kind of an idiom it's hard to translate you know the word sperm is the word for a Greek word for seed and logos of course is that where is a word that means a lot of different things from from word itself or principle or idea in this case it seems to be an idiom that means something like seed picker and it refers to birds how birds will sometimes you know land and they'll just start kind of random and randomly and without much thinking picking up anything they see on the ground and hoping that it's food sometimes they'll pick up a stone or a straw or trash or debris or whatever and they spit those out and it hopes that they'll find you know Doritos or something else that that's that's good for them to eat and so and so the the they called Paul this word because they thought that Paul they thought that Paul was a bit of an intellectual poseur somebody who's just who's just got a bunch of random little ideas that don't really make any sense right a little bit of this a little of that a little bit of this and in a worldview that is really unstable and pretty superficial it's interesting that's I think that we have a lot of these people in our world today people who go online and find a little bit of this a little bit of that or they listen to somebody on the radio or the TV and they see this and and they got they have a worldview constructed of all these miscellaneous little bits right I think we have a lot of sperm o logos in our world today kind of a precursor of a sort of postmodern approach they also accused him of worshipping false gods it's really interesting it says if you look at the text closely it says the preaching false gods and then aims them Jesus and anastasiya and if you're puzzled you should be because of course anastacio means resurrection they thought that when Paul was preaching resurrection that he was preaching a god named resurrection and and so so clearly the these these guys needed to know a little bit more about what Paul was actually preaching they had they had a poor idea of what was actually going on here and so Paul having the opportunity to stand before them and to address them was great so so let's turn to let's turn to the to the to the to the sermon here the address and and take a look at them yeah sorry these are out of waters my fault and we can skip down through through these and think here we go what I would like to do is very quickly on your handout you have a chart on the back of it and I would like to go through the main points of Paul sermon but I don't want to preach it as as a Christian necessarily and going through these points and explaining what they mean to us as Christians what I'd like to do instead is to go through these points and talk about how the Stoics and the Epicureans and the Greeks at the popular level the ordinary Greek would have understood it and and I'll go through this fast because there's a lot here we could talk a lot about these things and I don't want to take too much time but but you could follow along in your chart and you can mark these things off if you would like and and and and review them some more but but for instance this is a strange sermon because Paul doesn't he doesn't quote the Old Testament he doesn't quote Jesus he doesn't even mention Jesus at the end of the sermon he alludes to Jesus as the one who is resurrected but he never names there's there's very little in here that we would call soteriology right or a gospel-centered address there's no Trinitarian mentions in this in this address so I so that's why it's I think it is a sermon but but in some ways it sounds more like a speech or an address and so I'll use the language of both of those the the as you we know from this famous introduction to the unknown God right it's a sermon about God it's a sermon about God's nature and it has four points and the first one is that God is transcendent and the text says the God who made the world that everything in it is the lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples made by hands and he is not served by human hands as he as if he himself needed anything because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything this is the first point that God is transcendent he has created all he doesn't live in temples he is self-sufficient now let's take that first one the first sub point that God has created off and you had click 'add the the crowd right there by the crowd here I mean the the the the Athenians who were not necessary philosophers who went to the temple who worshipped the gods who were concerned about Zeus and Athena and Hermes and on all the rest and and you know and gave sacrifices those sorts of things and and when they when they see that God created all well they kind of thought that their gods only that only the Athenians were really created by God and the rest of the people the barbarians well who knows where they came from right the the Greeks were where ver had a high level of ethnocentrism they thought that they were special in the rest world was not so much and so so they were okay with God creating them but maybe not all the others the Stoics did believe that God created everything sure they were okay with that but the epicurean said no no God God has God doesn't have there if there is a God he's not Provident in fact they weren't weren't really be sure there was any gods so so even right off the bat we see the diversity of opinions here right when they said that God doesn't live in temples the everyday Athenian would have been would have been offended right they built all these beautiful temples so that the gods can be there and your tummy God doesn't even live in our temples it would been a hard point for them now the Epicureans they would have said yes we agree with you because they're trying to to deny these religious myths and so they don't think that gods live in the temples either and they think that temple worship maybe is is a little overdone and so so God doesn't live at temples how about God is self-sufficient well you know the everyday Greeks would have thought that the gods need to worship that they need what what we bring to them and the Epicureans that would have believed you know that if there is a God yes he's self-sufficient the Stoics I think would have been a little I says it says no on the screen it could have been yes and no right the Stoics would have if they believed that there was a God and they typically did they would if he's impersonal and then just as force well then he doesn't really need anything from us so they might have agreed that God is is self-sufficient so but even in this first point in our throw quickly you can see a wide variety of answers right Paul's what sounds to us as relatively simple preaching is is is impacting his hearers in a lots of different ways they're you know they're they're lining up in different sorts of ways they don't they don't all agree let's go to the next point Paul our God is providential in verse 26 it says from one man he made every nation of the world that they should inhabit the whole earth and he determined the time set for them and the exact places where they should live providence we can go ahead and put all three of these answers up look at the stoic column yes yes yes right this was one of their favorite doctrines God is providential and they would have definitely agreed with everything Paul is saying here yes yes yes God is Provident God God is in charge God is doing things God is God is creating a world for us God is taking care of us God is all these things and the Epicureans are just as firm no no no right they don't believe any of these sorts of things these are the myths that they want to try to to try to break and the Athenians hmm are back and forth a little bit certainly the last point that God governs all people right again the group for them the Greeks especially the Athenians are special so they would be surprised to know that God is concerned about people in in other places of the world but but the stark contrast between the Stoics and the Epicureans is a point worth worth noticing noticing here let's say so on to the next the next set of verses 27 and 28 God did this so that men would reach out to him and perhaps I'm so that God would the men would seek Him and perhaps reach out for him and find him though he's not far from each one of us for in him we live and move and have our being as some of your own prophets have said we are his offsprings if you've studied this past a little bit you know that Paul is quoting two of the Greek philosophers a poem an ADIZ and and also a man by the name of era tossed these were apparently well-known sayings well-known Maxim's that he's quoting he could very easily had quoted the the the Old Testament he could very easily have done that there are verses in Deuteronomy and Daniel that he could have put it but he quoted the Greeks because he wanted to to connect with them right how about this first well God is near enough so that we can seek Him well the crowd would have said sort of right I mean they expected that if they think that the gods live in the temples when they go there yeah there's the God the gods are there so in a way he's near the Stoics would have said yes he's near but but in this impersonal way right we're not going to meet him but we can maybe learn about him or maybe connect with him in this in this internal way and of course the Epicureans are going to say no our being is with him once again we have a similar kind of a dynamic what one of the things that's fascinating about this discussion between transcendence and imminence in in God is that as Christians we believe that God is with us but not necessarily with them that we're going to meet him in the temple but that he's he's he's in us right Paul's text says he is close to us that we could seek Him and maybe even find him we believe that God is is close to us in our hearts we can seek God within that's not what the Greeks thought this would have been new teaching to them maybe the Stoics would have been the closest to this idea but but it would have been a new teaching to the to the everyday Athenians and of course the Epicureans would have been far away from this God is our Father hmm the Epicureans would have been very puzzled by this idea there isn't there isn't literature references to Zeus as father so this would have been a point that would have been easier for some of the the Greeks to to grasp but for the Epicureans not so much all right one more one more of false points God is judge in verse 30 Paul says in the past God overlooked such ignorance but now he commands all people everywhere to repent for he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by them by the man he has appointed he has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead here we see Paul making a turn which I want to highlight in just a little bit this turned towards the gospel this sounds much more like like the Gospel message and and he so-so he has overlooked ignorance he now he wants people to repent and the proof is the resurrection go ahead and put the answers up and we're gonna see something really interesting right overlooking the ignorance maybe right maybe there would have been some some understanding of that but look at the last to look at we have we have widespread agreement which we have not had before right and all in denial right they all would have would have been angry with Paul right this repentance idea the Greeks didn't think they had to repent for anything and this idea of the resurrection what a bizarre idea right we know that in ancient Greek thought particularly platonic thought they believed in the immortality of the soul but they didn't believe that people were going to come back to life that their body would be restored this is an idea that was completely foreign to their way of thinking and we've reached the point now in which Paul is is preaching the hard truths that his audience is not going to be kindly disposed to and so all of a sudden whereas up until this point you know there was if you have if we have like barometers something that go up and down ya know and in the sliding scale but now it's all no no no right they they don't agree with what Paul is saying and that's why it's if the text seems to indicate that they interrupted Paul right when they heard about the resurrection of the dead some of them sneered but others said well we want to hear more about this on this topic and and then he left the council apparently he did okay right apparently he he established enough credibility that they that they that they gave him a passing grade although that it does say it said in eighteen that Chapter II team that Paul leaves we don't know how long he was there we know that he didn't didn't establish a church but but there were some that were saved and even one of these one of these prominent people from the areopagus was saved a man named Dionysos I mean let me let me wrap up here with a couple of with a couple of points of the sermon part here Paul's Paul's method I think is really important we see him as an individual who's credible who understands their ideas he quotes their poets he understands their teachings and he says things some of which they agree with some of which they don't agree with and but he then he goes on to some aspects of Christianity that are new to them that God that Yahweh is both transcendent and imminent that God is the judge but he's also provided a way out we don't see much of the plan of salvation here in the gospel we can assume that Paul mentioned it at some point along the way but it's not recorded in the text here let me draw out three three quick lessons from from this I don't think I have a slide on this three three lessons the first is that number one knowledge of the ideas of the day is essential for apologetics I hope that's a pretty obvious point right do we need to know something about the ideas of the day to interact with people yes like what kind of things am I talking about well you should understand something about about Darwinist and secular thought you should understand something maybe about the other religions Islam or Buddhism you should understand something about about postmodern concerns or whatever intellectual ideas are out there in our world today we need to be we need to be readers and thinkers interactors if we just know our own material we're not gonna be able to interact in the way that Paul did Paul understood Greek philosophy and he knew when he was stepping on their toes and when he wasn't we need to we need to be aware it's fascinating if you look at the Bible we see how many people in the Bible were very well educated Moses Daniel Luke Apollo's Paul himself Solomon these were thoughtful well-educated people of their day intellectual thought leaders and we need to I think follow that example secondly we need to use I'm sorry secondly using the language and the motifs of culture to expect to express biblical truth is not compromise let me say that again using the language and motifs of culture to express biblical truth is not compromise its contextualization right and if you're not sure about that think about what God did right he gave us a Bible in human language right the original contextualise ur is Yahweh himself through the Holy Spirit and and when we take our the ideas that we learn and put them in the the language of the culture we are helping them to to embrace it right Paul could have quoted Daniel or Deuteronomy and some of the points but he quoted a poem entities in an air toss right and and we should do the same thing we should do the same thing I'll follow up on this in a little bit thirdly we and this is maybe my most important point in terms of an application there is I think a third way that we need to follow in apologetics I think a lot of times as Christians when we interact with the world and we're trying to engage with people who are not who are not believers we and we we want to begin by talking about the common ground that we can establish and that's good right the areas in which we which in which there is common ground commonality Paul clearly does this and it's we want the things that we affirm together that's great and then but we also to find that there are things that we need to critique right this sounds like the positive negative projects I talked about right and so are things that we want to critique but but what Paul does in this sermon and what I want you to see is that Paul is not content just to establish the common ground or just to critique but he moves through those past those into a third place in which he presents the ideas of the gospel that are new to them right there's something further it's not enough just to affirm hey we're all buddies we agree that there's a God yeah you know that's nice but but when there's more and or we don't just want to be you know the negative well you believe this and that's wrong yeah I think we you know we need to challenge people but what Paul does is go for it go pass that to talk about the ways that that that the gospel is different um and when he talks about the resurrection this is clearly that kind of thing right the resurrection was a flashpoint and some of them were like oh no no I can't hear any more about this you're done I thought that was hope but it's what's over you're finished okay that's fine that's not our responsibility that's that's theirs but but some of them believed and some of them said I'll hear more about this and so apologetics is is is the the goal of pursuing through the the critiques and the affirmations to to the gospel message is taking a little bit further let's um let me skip I want to skip a Justin Martyr unfortunately I wanted to talk about him a little bit we'll have to in time I wanted to do to do this go to the next slide David Foster Wallace is a contemporary individual who's very it is very interesting he's the author of a book called Infinite Jest and a few others and and some people think that he is one of the sharpest minds of the postmodern generation unfortunately he committed suicide about 10 years ago fact there was that there was a tribute to him recently in Christianity today I think was the online edition and but he before he did that he gave a great commencement speak speech in a small College in Ohio and it's been published as a book you could also find it online it's called this is water and let me I wanted to do a little bit of what I would call a demonstration of apologetics right sometimes I ask students to to read Wallace's speech and to write a letter to him in which you engage with what he has to say let's go to let's go to the to the to the third slide Chantal yeah well and we'll wrap up the next one and here's part of part of Wallace's commencement speech he says the only thing that's capital T true is that you get to decide how you're going to see this how you're gonna try to see this this I submit is the freedom of a real education remember this is a commencement think he's talking about their liberal arts education learning how to be well adjusted you get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn't you get to decide what to worship because here's something else that's weird but true in the day-to-day trenches of adult life there actually is no such thing as atheism there's no such thing as worshipping everyone worships the only choice we get is what to worship and the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of God or spiritual type thing to worship be at JC and he's so hip right or Allah or Yahweh or the wicked mother goddess or the Four Noble Truths or some enviable set of ethical principles is that they pretty much is that pretty much everything else you worship will eat you alive if you worship money and things if they are where you tap real meaning in life then you will never have enough never feel like you have enough it's the truth worship your body and beauty and sexual lore and you will always feel ugly here's a great opportunity for us to to engage what I'm talking about are there things that we can agree with what he says there yeah do we think that that everybody worships something yeah and he says analysis pretty good I think it is now we might quibble over what we get to where we get to choose what we worship right you know we could talk about you know election and those sorts of things we can talk about that but but the idea that we all worship something is definitely an idea that we can that we can run with now he's kind of suggesting well you could just choose whatever you want but be careful some of them are worse than others alright we're on board with that too but do you see how you can take something like this and run with a little further right do you see how this sets up an opportunity for you to engage with somebody and and all and you know affirm the things that that you hold us true maybe offer a few correctives but then plunge forward to the gospel message in our apology as we interact with people I want to encourage you to push forward right let's talk to people and let's explore the areas that we agree and maybe the areas that we disagree but but we've got it we've got to turn to the gospel we've got to take that that third path and try to articulate the gospel message not not everybody's going to want to hear it and we're not able going to be able to preach the whole gospel every moment but we need to to be that needs to be our goal it needs to be rakul you

Channel: Dallas Theological Seminary

Views: 865

Keywords:

Id: 1MJiiGi_6Qc

Length: 42min 59sec (2579 seconds)

Published: Fri Nov 09 2018