tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364408693924127630.post2634846340628521279..comments2024-03-14T23:12:15.281-04:00Comments on TheoloGUI, in English with a French accent: A Few Critical Thoughts on Apologetic Methodologies (and their often misguided conflicts...)theoloGUIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00855547470484679467noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364408693924127630.post-71461294115551329652020-05-28T02:54:51.703-04:002020-05-28T02:54:51.703-04:00Hi Unknown.
Two points to answer your two objectio...Hi Unknown.<br />Two points to answer your two objections, but before I do so let me repeat your objections and you can tell me if I got them right:<br />1. The disciples were not persecuted for preaching the resurrection, in fact, the Bible says they were persecuted on account of their views on circumcision.<br />2. Some Christians in Corinth and to a lesser extent in Thessalonica scoffed at the idea of bodily resurrection.<br />Did I get them right? If not, please correct me. I will now proceed to give my response.<br />To answer your first objection, I would point you to Acts 23:1-8, specifically verse 6. Go ahead and look at the passage, and even look from verse 30 of chapter 22, as that will give you a better context of what situation Paul is in. Paul says in Acts 23:6b, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead." In the context, Paul was on trial because a Roman commander wanted to find out why the Jews were accusing him of certain things. In the trial, he was struck on the mouth, and from these two things aforementioned we can see he was being somewhat persecuted. Yes, he was persecuted for his views on circumcision. He was persecuted also for speaking against idolatry which threatened Roman idol makers (Acts 19:23-31). Circumcision was one thing he was persecuted for, and the resurrection was another.<br /><br />2. This is true at least for some of the Corinthians, I am not sure about the Thessalonians, could you tell me what you are referring to? Yes, some Corinthians were questioning whether there would be a physical resurrection. From the context of 1 Corinthians 15, I do not think we can say they "must have been scoffing". They may have been, but that is not something we can ascertain through the text. Now if you read 1 Corinthians 15 (which I recommend you do care if you really want an answer to your objection), you will see how Paul lays out a case against the assertions some Corinthian professors were making about the resurrection (1 Cor 15:12 and 35). What Paul does is he shows them that Christianity is vain if the resurrection is not true (1 Cor 15:17-19), that he is a liar if it isn't true(1 Cor 15:15) and that the very foundation of Christianity, namely the resurrection of Christ, is false (1 Cor 15:13 and 16). Long story short, if there is no resurrection from the dead, Christianity is not true. Now apart from the fact that an omnipotent God can raise a corpse and use that as a witness (which is certainly not inherently 'scoff' worthy), Paul tells us earlier in his first letter to the Corinthians that his message of Christ crucified (which includes necessarily the resurrection which he expounds in the opening verses of 1 Cor 15) is foolishness to the unbeliever so that those who find his message 'scoff' worthy and foolish may be identified as unbelievers, not Christians (1 Cor 1:18-31, 2:14). Now to clarify a possible objection to this, namely "If Paul says his message is foolishness to the unbeliever, is he not then admitting Christianity is foolish?" I will say this: Carefully read 1 Corinthians 2. It answers this objection. Paul is not saying that his message is foolish because if it is the truth, it is not arbitrary, but rather that it is wise, but unbelievers count it as foolish because they do not have the Spirit of God, and they love their sins which harden them against the truth of God.<br /><br />There I have given my answers to your objections. Please feel free to respond, but do not respond without having read my response carefully and thinking about it. Thanks, and God bless.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00674874175139653432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364408693924127630.post-24979322710738351572014-07-08T13:54:48.487-04:002014-07-08T13:54:48.487-04:00' (an unusually un-Jewish belief, that led the...' (an unusually un-Jewish belief, that led the disciples to be persecuted for preaching it against all oppositions).'<br /><br />When were the disciples persecuted for preaching a resurrection? Paul says in Galatians 6 that Christian leaders were persecuted on the issue of circumcision.<br /><br />Judging by Paul's letters to the Corinthians (and to a lesser extant Thessalonians) Christian converts must have been scoffing at the very idea of their god choosing to raise corpses.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09267356610062260128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364408693924127630.post-47032072587234203882014-07-08T13:08:03.635-04:002014-07-08T13:08:03.635-04:00Thank you for this very clear explanation Guillaum...Thank you for this very clear explanation Guillaume. Like you I affirm the value of classical apologetics, because the need to give "a reasoned defense" is implicit in 1 Peter 3:15, which is the cornerstone of Christian apologetics. The problem I have with the calvinistic take on this and other scriptures is that this verse, contrary to calvinism, implies the receptivity of the unregenerate mind to rational argument. The human mind is not so dead in sin and depraved by sin that it cannot respond to reason and to the command of God to obey the call to repentance and faith, any more than the serpent-bitten Israelites, called upon to "look and live" were incapable of turning their eyes toward the bronze serpent raised by Moses. God does not and cannot, being a God of love, issue a command "repend and believe the gospel" (Acts 17 v 30) which he has rendered most people, by his own sovereign decree, eternally incapable of hearing and obeying. God does not tell people to do what he has made it impossible for them to do. That is where a certain form of presuppositional apologetics, in so far as it is committed to calvinist soteriology, comes hopelessly unstuck. I look forward to hearing your views on this.Roger Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00024515784691521720noreply@blogger.com