tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post1220443036738091642..comments2023-10-03T04:23:48.046-07:00Comments on Reformed Mafia: Postmodernism vs. ChristMachine Gun Kelleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17501532765910479437noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-55072334817537398602007-07-27T06:44:00.000-07:002007-07-27T06:44:00.000-07:00Seth-God often uses apologetics as a bridge to the...Seth-<BR/><BR/><I>God often uses apologetics as a bridge to the gospel. The situation of Paul at the Areopogus is a classic example of this (Acts 17:16-34). Paul researched the belief system in Athens to understand the worldview held by the people. He did his homework first, and then he spoke. When he addressed the people, he did so in a way that was relevant to their expansive cultural context. From that point, he masterfully transitioned into a presentation of the gospel.The point I'm trying to make here is that Paul's objective was to present the gospel of Christ through Scripture.</I><BR/><BR/>Where precisely in Paul's speech to the Athenians does he even mention the scriptures? <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>He didn't merely speak in a way that was culturally relevant. His objective rather seems to have been to reason with them from the context of their own presuppositions, and by doing so demonstrate their self-negating worldviews.<BR/><BR/>I don't see him presenting Christ through the scriptures anywhere. And indeed, what value would Hebrew sacred literature have for Athenians, since they wouldn't have necessarily shared Paul's presuppositions of its inspirational or authoritative nature?Deviant Monkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01430691235471675645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-916560519474291192007-07-26T19:10:00.000-07:002007-07-26T19:10:00.000-07:00To exist-dissolve:I appreciate your thoughtful res...To exist-dissolve:<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your thoughtful response. However, make no mistake. I will not play the big-word and ambiguous-yet-it-sounds-intelligent game with you. If you want to participate in a fair and rational discussion, write clearly, concisely, and do not write abstractly. Communicate with vivid meaning. I know you are capable of being more clear because I have read through some of your blog entries.<BR/><BR/>Also, if it wasn't apparent to you, this entry was not to argue against postmodernistic thinking. It was to encourage those who are fighting against such a position. So before you go throwing implications around that I'm not going to critique both sides, you might want to consider the context first.Seth Fullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07971543656247882892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-66992409591880790272007-07-25T03:40:00.000-07:002007-07-25T03:40:00.000-07:00I see that there be some theological 'Heavy-weight...I see that there be some theological 'Heavy-weights" among us... ;DScribehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14963170918571560973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-83488532202669657892007-07-24T19:38:00.000-07:002007-07-24T19:38:00.000-07:00Tell me about it.... After debating a post-modern...Tell me about it.... After debating a post-modern emergent village pastor, I found that they are basically liberals that force Scripture through there liberal grid to make it fit the liberal world-view...jazzycathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16720471765591930568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-42236133355370551212007-07-24T16:40:00.000-07:002007-07-24T16:40:00.000-07:00Amen. The goal and end of all apologetics is to pr...Amen. The goal and end of all apologetics is to present Christ as the glorious, sovereign King of the Universe. While we do use logical reason and argumentation, it is only for the purpose of tearing down every barrier between a dead sinner's understanding and Christ. The goal is revealing the worth of Christ, while the means are apologetics. As Paul said, "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ (1 Cor. 10:5)."Trevor Almyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02760160840794491045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-64358376566373627812007-07-24T13:27:00.000-07:002007-07-24T13:27:00.000-07:00I wish I had thought to use this verse to make my ...I wish I had thought to use this verse to make my argument stronger, found in 1 Corinthians 1:21-25: "21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God andthe wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."Seth Fullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07971543656247882892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-10597625381854840542007-07-24T10:07:00.000-07:002007-07-24T10:07:00.000-07:00Yes -- nice, well-reasoned argument for not relyin...Yes -- nice, well-reasoned argument for not relying on well-reasoned arguments. <BR/><BR/>(:o] Just kidding... I mean... well, you know what i mean.)Dustinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04859070918878091126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-2081309678327149452007-07-24T08:30:00.000-07:002007-07-24T08:30:00.000-07:00While you are certainly free to level critiques ag...While you are certainly free to level critiques against the errors which you perceive to exist within postmodern thinking over and against your understanding of Scripture and the nature of the gospel, I hope that you will be as willing to be critical of the philosophical paradigms which you feel to be legitimate for approaching these same subjects. That is, for most who reject the legitimacy of the categories (or lack thereof) of postmodern methodology, the assumptions of post-Enlightenment modernist thinking are the "default." So my question would be are you willing to be equally critical of the philosophical arguments which are inherent to this paradigm of thinking through which you are apparently operating? <BR/><BR/><I>Albert Mohler has aptly stated that postmodernism "allows for infinite forms of meaning."</I><BR/><BR/>If postmodernism allows for infinite forms of meaning, what you would advocate reduces the exclusivity of meaning to the prejudices and presuppositions of the individuated thinker (not a much better conclusion, IMO). Truly enough, most who advocate the same will deflect this conclusion by claiming that the exclusivity of meaning which they assert has been appropriated from an objective, absolute source, despite the fact that there exists no accessible nor demonstrable criterion by which one might determine that such a source is in fact objective and/or absolute. In this way, Mohler's fear concerning the "infinitude" of meaning proposed by postmodernism would seem to stem not from any meaningfully determinable diminuition of "truth," but proceeds rather from distress over the loss of what has until now been an unquestioned hegemony of power concerning the supposed self-evident nature and accessibility of truth so-called.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-68606367994238505872007-07-24T08:09:00.000-07:002007-07-24T08:09:00.000-07:00Great first post, Seth. You and Trevor have really...Great first post, Seth. You and Trevor have really slapped a couple out of the park with your initial Mafia endeavors. Praise God.Gordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527530618839981892noreply@blogger.com