- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostMemorize Scripture With Us!
- Next Post »A La Carte (2/17)
The Tactics Blog Tour
- 02/16/09
- 45
Greg Koukl is setting out on a blog tour to support his new book Tactics (you can read my review of it right here). I agreed to participate, asking one question of my own and asking one question on behalf of another person. Here is what we asked and how Greg answered.
There are many “traditional” apologetic manuals available to us, perhaps the foremost of which is Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Such books seem to speak to a modern more than postmodern kind of mind. Do such books still have their place today?
I realize that the prevailing worldview among young people is a kind of reflexive postmodern relativism. They are very skeptical about truth claims and the kind of “rationality” that moderns have used to justify views that have led to oppression. But that is only a part of the story, the small part.
There is something else that is almost always missed with challenges like this one. Bad worldviews, even if deeply believed, cannot undo reality. God has given every human being the ability to know truth about their world. Our convictions as Christians include that God exists, that this is His world, and that man is made in His image. That’s the rest of the story. If we are right, then reality turns out to be structured in a very specific way and no unbeliever can escape it. Reality becomes our ally, even with postmoderns.
Note these comments from the Tactics chapter on “Taking the Roof Off.”
When I was a young Christian, I read Francis Schaeffer’s The God Who Is There. Schaeffer argues that Christians have a powerful ally in the war of ideas: reality. Whenever someone tries to deny the truth, reality ultimately betrays him… Although culture shifts, human nature remains the same. Ideas change, but reality does not….
Every person who rejects the truth of “the God who is there” is caught between the way he says the world is and the way the world actually is. This dissonance, what Schaeffer called the “point of tension,” is what makes Taking the Roof Off so effective. Any person who denies the truth of God’s world lives in contradiction. He says one thing, yet deep down he knows the truth….
Regardless of our ideological impulses [e.g., postmodernism], deep inside each of us is a common-sense realist. Those who are not are either dead, in an institution, or sleeping in cardboard boxes under the freeway. Knowing this gives us a tremendous advantage. The key to dealing with moral relativism, for example, is realizing that for all the adamant affirmations, no one really believes it, and for a good reason: If you start with relativism, reality does not make sense.
Unless a person is truly pathological, he cannot escape these truths even if he tries. His language and his behavior will always betray his deepest beliefs about the world. Emotions, prejudice, and bull-headedness may cause him to deny what would otherwise be obvious except when he is defending his ideological turf. But when his guard is down, every person understands that the basic structure of the world is the way the Bible says it is., at least in the broad strokes. Simply put, reason and rationality still matter, even to the postmodernist regardless of his claims to the contrary.
Recent studies (in addition to our own anecdotal experience at STR) bears this out. For example, sociologist Christian Smith in his book Soul Searching reveals that one of the primary reasons students abandon their Christian convictions is because of “some version of intellectual skepticism or disbelief.” Some typical responses:”It didn’t make any sense anymore,” “Some stuff is too far-fetched for me to believe,” “I think scientifically and there is no real proof,” and, “Too many questions that can’t be answered.”
There is no good reason, then, to abandon our apologetics or our appeal to careful thinking. The content of the older offerings is still good, I think, especially Schaeffer, who makes a singular contribution and was remarkably prescient in anticipating the challenges of the 21st century. I would tend to favor newer books, though, because of updated scholarship and, in many cases, a tone that is more readable or more sensitive to the prevailing intellectual ethos. I’m thinking especially of something like Thinking about God (Ganssle), or anything that Lee Strobel has written in apologetics, though there is a plethora of good works now available.
What are the attitudinal and spiritual preparations one must do before using apologetic “tactics” in conversations with unbelievers? — Ryan, Littleton, CO
First, using tactics is not an advanced enterprise suitable only for trained professionals. There are no “attitudinal and spiritual preparations” one must go through before using tactics. In fact, when I do my basic talk on the Columbo tactic (the foundational tactic for the book’s game plan), I introduce it like this: “In the next 45 minutes, I am going to give you a game plan that will allow you to interact with confidence in any conversation, no matter how little you know or how aggressive or powerful or educated the other person may be.”
However, there are some “spiritual and attitudinal” perspectives it is helpful to keep in mind in order to be effective using tactics. First is this warning I include in chapter one:
There is a danger I want you to be aware of, so I need to pause and make an important clarification. Tactics are not manipulative tricks or slick ruses. They are not clever ploys to embarrass other people and force them to submit to your point of view. They are not meant to belittle or humiliate those who disagree so you can gain notches in your spiritual belt.
I offer this warning for [a reason]….These tactics are powerful and can be abused. It’s not difficult to make someone look silly when you master these techniques. A tactical approach can quickly show people how foolish some of their ideas are. Therefore, you must be careful not to use your tactics merely to assault others.
My goal, rather, is to find clever ways to exploit someone’s bad thinking for the purpose of guiding her to truth, yet remaining gracious and charitable at the same time. My aim is to manage, not manipulate; to control, not coerce; to finesse, not fight. I want the same for you.
There is another perspective that is important to keep in mind. It has to do with the role we play in the process of influencing others for the Gospel, versus the role God plays.
Note this from chapter two:
Without the work of the Spirit, no argument—no matter how persuasive—will be effective. But neither will any act of love, or any simple presentation of the Gospel. Add the Spirit, though, and the equation changes dramatically.
Here’s the key principle: Without God’s work, nothing else works. But with God’s work, many things work. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, love persuades. By the power of God, the Gospel transforms. And with Jesus at work, arguments convince. God is happy to use each of these methods.
Understanding this truth makes our job as ambassadors much easier. We can be confident that every time we engage, we have an ally. Our job is to communicate the Gospel as clearly, graciously, and persuasively as possible. God’s job is to take it from there. We may plant the seeds or water the saplings, but God causes whatever increase comes from our efforts.
We are not in this alone. Yes, each of us has an important role to play, but all the pressure is on the Lord. Sharing the Gospel is our task, but it’s God’s problem.
I like to call this principle “100% God and 100% man.” I am wholly responsible for my side of the ledger, and God is entirely responsible for His. I focus on being faithful, but I trust God to be effective. Some will respond and some will not. The results are His concern, not mine. This lifts a tremendous burden from my shoulders.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (45)
This sounds like a great book. I’m going to order it today. Thanks.
I got Greg Koukl’s book last week and have not been able to put it down. Not only is it extremely well written but it is clear that what he is saying is true. It has given me a greater confidence in talking with non-believers. I highly recommend this book for everyone who interested in evangelism.
Sally:I was on www.str.org and they’re giving away copies for a donation. You may want to check there.
Jarrod:Have you used any of the Tactics yet?
Re: Ryan’s question:
It’s worth noting (as Greg has done elsewhere; I don’t know about the book yet) that these techniques, especially “Columbo,” used to just be called Socratic dialogue.
I’ve tried to get in the habit of doing this in non-religious conversations, and it helps me to understand other people.
It’s worth remembering that we debate religious ideas to win souls, not arguments, but we shouldn’t fear learning to argue more effectively.
Greg,Have you found much resistance from Christians who object to using “methods” or “tactics” — and if so, how have you responded?
I wonder what his thoughts are about Dr. Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetic.
ChrisB”It’s worth remembering that we debate religious ideas to win souls”
Really, I thought we preached the gospel to “win souls” and debate religious ideas to show the foolishness of the worlds religions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd_BjMP5RtE&feature=related
Very rarely a Christian will suggest that our methods or tactics are manipulative. That we, for e.g., ask questions that we already know the answer to. When I hear challenges like that, I wonder if the person has read our material (STR). Our approach is genial, friendly, and interactive. Yes, it is an “approach,” a method that one works through, but just because you have a method, doesn’t mean you’re manipulating. As for the charge that we’re asking questions we already know the answers to (in regards to the Columbo tactic), I have two comments. One, the first two Columbo questions are completely and utterly genuine. We need clarification on what a person means and what his reasons are. These questions are completely legitimate. And, in fact, they protect us from abusing the other person by either misunderstanding or misrepresenting his view. Second, yes we sometimes do know the answers to the questions we’re asking. So what? This is a rhetorical tool that was used by many in a noble fashion. Socrates used the “Socratic method” and Jesus raised questions all the time that He knew the answers to. Anyone reading the Tactics book will discover that this approach is a good way to engage others in thoughtful conversation about Christianity in the most winsome and attractive way where the least amount of pressure is being put on either party. That makes for genial and fruitful dialogue.
One of the ways we win souls is by speaking intelligently and persuasively about the issues that come up. This is exactly what we find in the Gospels and the book of Acts. There is no dichotomy between arguments and preaching the Gospel. The Gospel is argued for in a number of different ways that fits the circumstance and person. Don’t get caught up in dichotomizing these two things. They are woven together. Don’t worry about the distinctions between Gospel and argument when you’re talking to people. Just respond to the issues as they come up and let God take it from there. Sometimes I never get to the Gospel because the ground needs to be tilled more before seeds can be planted and take root. Otherwise, I’d be casting my seeds upon the hard soil.
Curtis,
It’s useful to think of apologetics as “pre-evangelism.” We’re trying to deal with the objections that people have so that they will give the gospel a fair hearing.
Greg KouklIsn’t that what the law of God is for, breaking the hard hearted?And also Paul wasn’t so much appealing to the culture and intellect as he was showing them the One true God of scripture, then presenting His law and Gospel. I think too many fall into the thinking that we can reason people into belief through “arguements” and the intellect, when in fact ONLY the gospel has the power to bring a man to repentance and faith.
I think appologetics have their place, but they should never replace or stand as necessary to bring someone to the knowledge of the truth. Answer honest questions, yes, but always present the message of the gospel which alone has the power to save.
ChrisBPeople hate the gospel in their unregenerate state and they won’t give it a “fair” hearing until God works through it and breaks their hard heart. Only then will they see their need for the Savior. Reasoning with someone is well and good, but until God begins to soften their heart through the law and gospel they will not believe the message.
All I’m saying is primarily the gospel must be preached, and all the reasoning and arguements in the world won’t bring someone closer to the truth apart from it.
I know that in my own life and experience I have met those who need to have intelligent reasons for believing and/or even considering the gospel.
For example, if someone is seeking, but has been brought up to believe that God does not exist, I could handle that two ways:
1) Give them some evidence to believe in a Creator (Natural Theology) and then share the gospel message
2) Share the gospel
It seems to me that the both/and approach (#2) would challenge the unbeliever to take the gospel message more seriously.
No one doubts the role the Holy Spirit has to play in bringing someone to Christ; however, I believe it is totally rational to trust that the Holy Spirit (the most rational Being in the universe) can use good reason and evidence to open someone’s eyes to the truth that is only found in Christ.
God Bless
Curtis,
Your last comment sounds a little like the over-dichotomizing I am concerned about. Here is what I wrote in Tactics that may clarify my own view:
“Without the work of the Spirit, no argument—no matter how persuasive—will be effective. But neither will any act of love, or any simple presentation of the Gospel. Add the Spirit, though, and the equation changes dramatically.
“Here’s the key principle: Without God’s work, nothing else works. But with God’s work, many things work. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, love persuades. By the power of God, the Gospel transforms. And with Jesus at work, arguments convince. God is happy to use each of these methods.
“Why do you think God is just as pleased to use a good argument as He is a warm expression of love? Because both love and reason are consistent with God’s own character. The same God who is the essence of love (1 John 4:8) also gave the invitation, ‘Come now, let us reason together’ (Isaiah 1:18). Therefore, both approaches honor Him. And both approaches are effective in the power of the Spirit.”
I’m going to have to read this at some point. Also have a renewed desire to read Schaeffer’s Trilogy.
I always stuggle with evangelism vs apologetics. If we let what comes up rule the conversation how will we ever get to the cross or sin? Those things the person will never talk about. But equally I’m unconvinced that apologetics is bad as many peach…
Hmm… I’ll have to read your book me thinks.
Tim,
It surprises me why people think apologetics is “bad.” It is commanded in the Bible (1 Peter 3:15) and is used in some way be virtually every biblical mouthpiece for God’s message, both in the New Testament and the Old. John says that his entire Gospel is one big apologetics argument—a defense of an assertion (Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God) by giving evidences (the many miraculous “signs” John gives in his Gospel) (see John 20:30-31). Read Peter’s sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2) or his message to Cornelius (Acts 10) to see there simply is not dichotomizing between Gospel and apologetics. They are woven together in a seamless way.
The goal of all of these conversation, though, is to get to the Gospel. Sometimes the road is longer than others. It really depends on the person you’re witnessing to. That’s why there’s no one method, but really skills to help each person navigate their way through objections. I really see apologetics as evangelism, and have written the book with such a posture, because the Gospel is always the purpose of such dialogue. It’s not that we never get to the Gospel and keep talking about objections; it’s that you prepare the way for the Gospel trusting that the Holy Spirit is working on the person’s heart and mind. I think the Gospel is woven throughout the conversation and probably comes up repeatedly in many instances.
Greg,Absolutely loving your book! I can hardly put it down to do anything else. I am in complete agreement that there is no dichotomy between apologetics and sharing the gospel. In fact I see them as pretty much the same thing. Maybe just different places on the journey. My reason for thinking this is that why would anyone care about what the Gospels say (authority of the Bible) if you can’t show them why they should! Why would they care what “God” says if they don’t believe there is a God and you can’t show them why they should believe there is? If you can’t show people why the false things they do believe are false, why would they believe you when you tell them of their sin nature and need of a savior? And we could go on.I’m wondering about how to engage youth. How do I get youth to be interested in thinking about why they believe what they believe, or even what it is they believe? Are there any tactical approaches to engaging youth in a group setting? Or is this kind of thing better left to one on one settings after I’ve developed a closer relationship?
Naturalistic evidence is useful is certain circles, but cannot be used to convince an unbeleiver of the truth for a variety of reasons.
1.) Much of it contains questionable (at best) science.2.) Evidential apologetics affirms the truth claims of naturalism and then tries to argue for God based on naturalistic evidence, thus the Christian is always on the defensive.3.) Evidential apologetics fails to make the unbeliever defend his own metaphysical presuppositions.4.) Evidential apologetics assumes that the question of God’s Existence is a Scientific Question. It isn’t.
The problem with the unbelievers isn’t with the evidence, because he has the same evidence as the believer. The problem with the unbeliever is metaphysical. He cannot recieve the things of the kingdom of God because they are foolishness to him. While evidence may be used to answer a particular objection, it cannot convert.
The evidence for the existence of God is that He has revealed Himself in His Word. Denial of that evidence isn’t the fault of the evidence. Therefore, the presuppositional approach is not only the superior approach, but really the only moral approach.
Would you please explain what the presuppositional approach is for me since I haven’t heard that term before.
Hey Matt,
There are several ways to approach this, and it involves stripping the unbelieving worldview down to its most basic presuppositions and showing their absurdity. God is a necessary precondition of logic, science, morality, and intelligible experience. Therefore, we can conclude that, without God, none of these things are possible. (Reductio ad absurdum).
Two helpful links:
http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2007/01/sound-proof-for-gods-existence.html
http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/
The second is the “Great Debate” between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein, where Bahnsen employs two of the above areas.
Hope This Helps.
Greg Koukl will be on these sites tomorrow:http://www.apologetics315.comhttp://rdtwot.wordpress.com/
While I agree that the presuppositional approach seems to be the most effective when I am sharing the gospel, I do find that the classical approach, such as the one Greg uses, is also helpful for a few reasons. here are a couple, right off the cuff.1. There are many who have fallen away due to the deception of false worldviews and misappropriation of sciece - especially college students. In this case, I believe apologetics is helpful working in conjunction with the Holy Spirit to reclaim them for the work of the kindgom.2. If the Holy Spirit is already working to convict the unbeliever’s heart, often times people will throw up an intellectual smokescreen to protect themselves and to try to delay coming to reality and being completely broken before the cross. In my opinion, classic apologetics can be very helpful in clearing away the smokescreen, so that a real discussion can be had about sin and the message of the cross and the resurrection.
Interesting dialog to this point.
I currently work in an environment that includes a lot of competition for resources and the expenditure of those resources are presumably guided by processes of corporate, rational processes by various bodies. At times I have endeavored to apply some of the methods of the tactics in the process of discourse of this intended rational decision-making process. My purpose in doing so is three-fold; to practice the techniques, to guide a complex decision process through rational methods as opposed to emotional methods, and to demonstrate myself as a fair-minded thinker among my associates.
What I hope to learn is how to become a better all-around rational thinker and communicator, and as I do so, build relationship bridges that can later be used to discuss things of greater importance. I think the art and method of logical discourse is not a practice that should be limited to issues of theology, but rather should be practiced throughout our activities and interactions in order to come to sound conclusions and to demonstrate the strengths of rational thought - a skill that is commonly missing in our current state of society.Greg - Do you have any thoughts on this approach?
Matt,It’s a fair question, but impossible to do justice to here, kind of like trying to sum up quantum mechanics in a paragraph. The debate trades on somewhat complex philosophic and theological details that remain confusing to many even after both sides sides weigh in eloquently on the issue. Suffice it to say that those who promote presuppositionalism do so motivated by a concern for God’s sovereignty and His glory, which is why Puritan Lad considers it the “only moral approach.”
Greg, I wish you’d add a tactic for when you’re being ganged up on. All of yours are geared toward one-on-one conversations. But I guess the steamroller tactic might be useful in a situation like that.
Puritan Lad,
I certainly do not mean this in an unkind way, but I do want to be direct. Your entire post, P.L., is an affirmation to me of why I am not a presuppositionalist. Virtually everything you claim that you think supports your conclusion that presuppositionalism is “not only the superior approach, but really the only moral approach” is simply false.First, “naturalistic evidence” (I take this to mean evidence from the natural realm) does convince people of certain vital truths regarding the Biblical message, and it does this frequently. I know because I’ve seen it happen many times, and so have, I’m sure, many of the people reading this blog.Second, the science behind these evidences is not “questionable at best,” but rather compelling precisely because it seems to be sound. There is a massive body of work showing this to be so. Third, the Greek word “apologia” from 1 Peter 3:15 means to make a defense, so being on the defensive is not somehow spiritually untoward or unscriptural. When the truth is under attack, defense of the truth is appropriate. Even when one goes on the offensive with positive arguments for the truth (like the excellent transcendental argument that is favored by presuppositionalists) it is still a way of defending against the challenges to our truth claims. Debating about whether or not we are on the offensive or defensive, then, is wasted effort, it seems to me. We have bigger fish to fry.Fourth, as an evidentialist, I am free to use the best tools at my disposal, including Schaeffer’s “Taking the Roof Off” (see the chapter in Tactics devoted to this effort), a move that does challenge the non-believer’s metaphysical presuppositions. Evidentialists do make use of presuppositional arguments at times.Fifth, as an evidentialist I do not assume God’s existence is a scientific question. Rather, I am aware that scientific evidences (that is, evidence from the natural world) are one of many that bear witness to the truth of the Creator, just as Paul says in Romans 1. Further, I also make use of the moral argument, arguments regarding the soul, and other transcendental arguments that do not trade at all on scientific knowledge. Science doesn’t give us an exhaustive worldview, but it does give us some accurate knowledge that points to God’s existence.Sixth, I agree wholeheartedly that the problem with unbelievers is not the evidence, but rebellion (also Romans 1), and while evidence itself cannot convert (as I explained above), that doesn’t mean evidence plays no role in God’s sovereign working. The simple fact is that the Scripture is full of evidential arguments (see above). If the dictates of presuppositionalism mean we cannot follow the example of our Savior and of those who He trained to take His message after him, then I think that the fault is with presuppositionalism.Seventh, as for the claim that “the evidence for the existence of God is that He has revealed Himself in His Word,” this simply is not Paul’s claim in Romans 1. Yes, God is revealed in His Word. But it is also true that “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”My final thought has to do with the evidential presuppositional debate itself. I bypassed the first question on this issue (#7 from The Aspiring Theologian) because in my experience these discussions usually go on circles. There seems to me, in a serious desire to be pious and demonstrate honor to God, to be a certain dogmatism that accompanies the followers of Van Till that seems to obscure what is obvious in the practice of those in Scripture and also in the results of those who incorporate an evidentialist approach in the efforts to win people to Christ.
Sam,
You’re right, a variation of the Steamroller Tactic (a chapter in the book) is best in that scenario. Just as in “Steamroller” you need to stop the aggressive momentum and then work on one issue at a time, when there’s a group against you, do the same thing. Ask the group to slow down and deal with one person and question at a time. The simple point here is that you’re not going to entertain a conversation with those who want to win by intimidation and force of collective personalities. Of course, sometimes the group as a whole may amount to a “benevolent steamroller” - not ill-willed, but still out of control. Sometimes people get excited even when they don’t mean to be rude. In any event, the same tactic of negotiation applies.
I would only add to the evidentialist/ presuppositionalist debate that we should seriously consider the case of Cornelius in Acts 10. If Curtis is correct and people “hate” the truth about God until they hear “the law and the gospel,” then how is it that Cornelius can be a “god-fearer?” Clearly he needed to hear from Peter before he could be regenerate, but equally as clear is the fact that the Holy Spirit was working in his heart and mind prior to his hearing from Peter, and in fact it was in response to Cornelius’ “praying to God continually” that Peter came in the first place. So I find it erroneous to be so overly dogmatic about “law and gospel” analyses that don’t take into account the many nuances and paradoxes of Scripture. Does Cornelius fit under the indictment of Romans 1-3? Yes! Does he hate God until he hears the “law and the gospel?” It appears not, otherwise I think you’re giving “hate” a semantic domain that goes beyond all recognition.
I would only add to the evidentialist/ presuppositionalist debate that we should seriously consider the case of Cornelius in Acts 10. If Curtis is correct and people “hate” the truth about God until they hear “the law and the gospel,” then how is it that Cornelius can be a “god-fearer?” Clearly he needed to hear from Peter before he could be regenerate, but equally as clear is the fact that the Holy Spirit was working in his heart and mind prior to his hearing from Peter, and in fact it was in response to Cornelius’ “praying to God continually” that Peter came in the first place. So I find it erroneous to be so overly dogmatic about “law and gospel” analyses that don’t take into account the many nuances and paradoxes of Scripture. Does Cornelius fit under the indictment of Romans 1-3? Yes! Does he hate God until he hears the “law and the gospel?” It appears not, otherwise I think you’re giving “hate” a semantic domain that goes beyond all recognition.
Greg,
I am going through the Ambassadors Basic Curriculum right now and I’ll also get Tactics next, but as I seek opportunities that God would put before me, I’m also looking to start conversations. Do you ever start spiritual conversation (“fishing”) when there’s nothing obvious to take from? (like the Pentagram necklace from the photo shop or cross tattoo on the waiter).
I guess another way to ask that would be - what are some examples of ways we can engage people when there is no obvious excuse? Sort of a tactic to get conversation started, I guess. Moving from topics like the economy, the weather, kids to spiritual things….
(if that’s in your book, then I’ll have to get it even sooner!)
Thank you for your ministry. STR is a true blessing to me! Bigtime.
Brian has a good question, and I’d like an answer on that, too. Any tips for getting a conversation started? I’m a horrible conversationalist.
Brian,
When there’s no obvious available springboard into spiritual things, you have to make one yourself. You have to raise the topic in some fashion. I don’t know of any clever way to do this. Just stay alert for opportunities. For myself, I rarely try to bring up spiritual topics cold, as it were. I may use my Columbo tactic just to initiate a friendly conversation, and then I watch for an opening. Sometimes you begin building a relationship (even a short-term one) by simply being friendly. It’s not any more complicated than that.
Greg KouklGood clarification, thank you. I wasn’t “over-dichotomizing”, I’m simply trying to encourage that the gospel be preached as the source God uses to save mens souls, not nesscarily apart from reason, and intellect, but in spite of it. Hope this clears things up.
Michael Duenes
People do hate God and the gospel prior to the work of the Holy Spirit, to say otherwise is to deny the fallen state of man, thats the point. God works through creation and conscience, but until a person is confronted with the law of God and the gospel, they remain dead in sin, unable to love God.
Michael Duentes #30
I have raised the Cornelius example myself on some older posts a few weeks ago hoping for a Calvinist to answer it. I note Curtis didn’t give a direct answer to the Cornelius case (# 35 post). This is a counter-Calvinistic example insofar as at the time of the angel’s appearance, Cornelius was obviously in his unregenerate state (why else would he have to be visited by Pedro for ‘further instructions’ on how to get saved?). Calvinists don’t budge from the ‘total depravity’ notion which in its simplest meaning would mean that an unregenerate soul would be totally incapable of fearing God like Cornelius did.
The Tactics Issue #30
I have mixed feelings about this and I’m simply voicing / blogging them out loud. On one hand I have seen first hand the debris left behind by those who so unwisely try to ‘win souls’ for the kingdom. I have a ‘passionate’ relative who sees it as his God given duty to evangelize (or witness to) anything with a pulse. His aggressiveness is more of a repellent than a magnet. He could do with a good dose of wisdom and tactical skills.
While there are common denominator threads on such conversations, some of them also have unique angles. I was recently approached by a non Christian co-worker who told me that in his opinion, Mary’s conception of Jesus could make a legal case for ‘rape’ in a modern court on the grounds of ‘non-consensual impregnation’. In the beginning I thought he was just trying to trip me up like the Pharisees’ ‘should we pay taxes to Caesar’ question. After some careful probing I realized that he was genuine and wasn’t trying to mock my faith. By God’s grace and wisdom I gave him an answer that he could understand and agree with, but this highlights the importance of having apologetic skills so we don’t get ambushed by non Christians and look like brainwashed idiots. It’s ‘horses for courses’ and it is obvious you can’t use a blanket approach with every person you meet. Clearly Paul ‘framed’ the gospel differently for the Athenian intelligentsia than he did for Jews in synagogues.
My other reaction to ‘tactics’ is that it needs to be viewed (as I’m sure the author intended it) as a tool and nothing else. If the Lord doesn’t intervene (as Greg already mentioned and quoted from his book) it is pointless. It’s a case of “Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain”. I get concerned when we become too clever with our methods and place more value in them than in God’s life changing power.
My other question is more a rhetorical one: If God has determined to save a person does it really matter how tactfully or tactlessly we carry the conversation? I openly confess my deep disdain for Calvinism but I still believe in God’s sovereignty at least to the point that if a person responds to the gospel God still has to intervene in their hearts and minds otherwise the gospel won’t make much sense to them.
And lastly, I share Curtis’ (# 12) view that the gospel ‘alone has the power to save’. The catch is that the gospel becomes subject to the mouthpiece that is delivering it in the conversation. The ‘mouthpiece’ may misrepresent it either by way of ignorance, prejudice or by overemphasizing and / or underemphasizing aspects of the truth that the ‘witnesser’ feels more strongly about.
Greg,
Just to clarify, I did support the use of evidence in some cases, but that in the end, the “evidence” doesn’t really prove anything. If you have won people over with “evidence”, then praise God. Evidential arguments have their place, but they also have a host of problems.
Relying solely on evidence implicitly denies the Lordship of Christ over human knowledge (Col. 2:8). Before one can begin to give the kind of apologetic answers that glorify God, he must first “in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy”. Then you can “always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;” (1 Peter 3:15). There can be know neutral starting point. For example, we cannot allow the unbeliever to make “scientific” arguments until he first justifies science in his worldview.
When it comes to the essential matters of the Christian faith, evidential arguments fall miserably short. Such a method means that God’s revelation of Himself is unclear.How does one evidentially argue for the Diety of Christ, or for His resurrection. Such a belief is addressed by Christ Himself.
‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:31)
So evidence can be used to answer specific objections, but in reality cannot “prove” anything.
This book looks like a good read.. I have blogged a few times about how Christians give Christ bad name by being too much about “I’m wrong and you’re right” instead of speaking as much with actions as anything else.
Oh, Tim, did you see Driscoll on CNN? It was pretty good!
Puritan Lad #21:
fwiw, I disagree that God is a necessary precondition for logic, science and morality.
John from Down UnderSigh…
J.P.H.
Of course you diagree, as to most atheists. But disagreeing isn’t the same as refuting. Perhaps you would like to defend science in an atheistic worldview. Perhaps you can refute David Hume’s skepticism of induction from a naturalistic worldview. Perhaps you can explain how a naturalist can account for the human mind being able to have any fruitful connection with the created order. Explain how you can justify any sort of universal invarient law.
I’ll await your answers. See you at lunchtime…
By the way Greg K. I love your Strand to Reason site, especially dealing with pluralism.
Curtis,You did not even begin to answer my question, and “sighing” won’t change that fact. You essentially evaded the whole argument I made and simply reasserted your position. I am a Calvinist, and I stated quite clearly that Cornelius was unregenerate until Peter came and preached the full gospel to him. But this does not change the fact that Cornelius was a God-fearing man and contextually it appears that God was responding to his prayers. How would a person who hates God even pray to him, and further, have his prayer answered? This does not change a person’s need to hear the gospel, but let’s not be reductionistic in our assertions. Acts 10 needs an answer, and my point was simply to say that the Holy Spirit clearly is working in people’s hearts before they are regenerate such that they have a desire to seek and know God. That’s not true in all cases, but it seems to be in Cornelius’ case.
Puritan Lad,
“but that in the end, the “evidence” doesn’t really prove anything.”
What does that even mean? Does it “kindof” prove anything? How does one go about “proving” something, anyway?
“If you have won people over with “evidence”, then praise God.”
If you have won people over with TAG, then praise God.
“Evidential arguments have their place, but they also have a host of problems.”
And what would those be? Please don’t regurgitate Bahnsen for me. been there, done that.
“Relying solely on evidence implicitly denies the Lordship of Christ over human knowledge (Col. 2:8). ”
Well, I don’t know anyone who “relies solely on evidences.” Indeed, if you would bother to read any evidentialists, especially contemporary ones, you’d note the emphasis they place on presuppositions and worldviews. But, sopposing you can make your comment more rigorous, would you care to lay out this “implication.”
“Before one can begin to give the kind of apologetic answers that glorify God, he must first “in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy”.
The supressed premise here is that “all non-presuppositionalists [where that is cashed out to mean hard core, right wing TAGsters] cannot begin to give the kind of apologetic answers that Glorify God because they don’t regard Christ the Lord as holy.” Question: Do you have any idea how ridiculous, or pompous, or arrogant this sounds? Not to mention it is flat out wrong.
“There can be know neutral starting point.”
A point I see made by evidentialists all the time.
“When it comes to the essential matters of the Christian faith, evidential arguments fall miserably short.”
I don’t even know what this means. Have you seen any evidentialists trying to prove justification by faith alone via evidences? Granting you can spell out all of this more precisely, concisely, and rigorously, let’s see how the arguments fall “miserbbly” short. Indeed, before you can appeal to miserability, you need to justify that claim in your worldview. What does it mean to “fall miserably short?”
“‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:31)”
The part that got lost in Scribal transmissions was this: “…, or if one delivereth the TAG.”
Most conservative evidentialists admit that God needs to change the heart.