apologetics

A Call for a New Reformation

spong is a passionate retired US 'anglican' bishop (read: liberal) whose views attack mainstream christianity. the task is looking at considerations and steps in developing a framework of an apology toward a colleague who thinks that his views are better than the Bible.

ps. cheat-sheet (framework) was given after the assignment was due. again, it's an eye opener! a massive framework, touching different aspects of apologetics.

------------------------------------

Considerations:

Spong’s views are a theology that goes against the very teachings of the Bible. He defies the biblical accounts of creation, Jesus’ incarnation through the virgin birth, and His saving work on the Cross, miracles performed, resurrection, ascension as well as a loose interpretation that the Bible is not to be taken on literally among the others. His is a view that places a whole lot of emphasis on the rationale of human reasoning and intellectual over the revelation of the truth by the Holy Spirit.

Colleague X who thinks that Spong’s views are better may not be necessarily interested in seeking the truth itself, rather, is just trying to impose ‘another’ standard truer to his mind on Christianity. Obviously, his presuppositions are inverted, mainly on what he believes about the Bible not being a source of objective truth.

Like Spong, Colleague X may be too heavily relying on scientific data in forming his concepts which can’t be conclusive when used as the only yard-stick in understanding biblical truth that is both historical and revealed. Scientific method is inadequate if historical facts are to be proven under it. Moreover, once historical data is not taken into consideration, faith remains a giant blind leap to trust in an unknown object (or facts about the object), regardless of what Calvin concludes, that faith and reason are to confirm one another if we are to arrive at a comprehensive biblical truth.

Based on what I assume on Colleague X, it is reasonable to say that Colleague X has not placed a personal trust in Jesus as the only way to God or alternatively it is a consequence of his corrupted belief in the Bible itself that testified about Jesus as God, and therefore, apology steps involving all the three schools below could be developed.

Steps:

Using the presuppositionalist school, Colleague X has to be challenged that the Bible is enough as the only source of truth to offer explanations even on supernatural things which modern mind tend to disregard. Therefore, “Christology of the ages” (quoting Spong) that defines Christianity still hold true as literally revealed in the Bible. At the same time, distinction has to be made between descriptive and prescriptive accounts in the Bible, though on issues of Christology, truth can’t be discounted. To know God, one has to believe in the biblical truth that speaks of Jesus, the God incarnate Son through whom dead human being can be spiritually revived by trusting in Jesus. Essentially, this is faith over reason.

It remains then of how reliable the Bible is if we are to regard as true the historicity of Jesus as recorded in the Bible. In this case, the evidentialist school can be helpful by inviting Colleague X to investigate further the readily available and voluminous resources on the evidences referring to Jesus which have been confided by both Christian and secular historians. Essentially, this is reason over faith.

Finally, personal testimony can be given to dismiss the notion that being a Christian is solely a matter of being intellectually convinced rather than being in a personal relationship with God. Through this experientialism school, Colleague X could learn that God is indeed good for His initiative in offering forgiveness that comes through a personal faith in Christ.