Apologetics 101 Apologetic Inhibitions

Apologetic Inhibitions The revelation of the Bible has been around so long we forget that it always (given the chance) intrudes itself into a set of comfortable human beliefs. The word of God may seem old (and to some, moribund) but "The Lord your God is one God" was a shockingly new and iconoclastic intrusion into the polytheistic age in which it was first spoken. And it is an iconoclastic intrusion into this age as well. Jesus expanded the OT meaning to draw attention to certain failures of that generation: you can not serve two masters; the love of money is the root of all evil; you cannot place tradition ahead of the living God; you must place Jesus before even wife & family. Jesus' parables have universal application, but there is a sense in which some of the New Testament is dated. We do not have Scribes & Pharisees to deal with today. We are confronted with Liberals, Humanists and Atheists. "Wait," you will say, "Jesus' principles can be applied to every modern group." Well, good, I agree, but where is the evidence that we are pursuing this task? Perhaps we are not pursuing the modern task because our house (His house) is in disarray. And God's revelation intrudes itself into all our comfortable beliefs as well. If we look at the message of Jesus Christ, we find parables that defy definition. There is a disdain of the "literal." It is as though the literal is merely human, but what is required is that we leave the human and become lifted into the Spiritual realm. We all (who believe) feel this realm. we feel it and know we have been so lifted and exposed to the Spiritual nature of Jesus. But it is in our nature to seek to define this process. And so, like a Platonist returning to his cave, we seek to define to our blind (and not so blind) brethren the nature of light. In past times, theological giants have imposed their definitions on the masses of Christianity and their definitions have become dogma. But subsequent Christians, drawn up into the Spiritual nature of Christ have seen that the previous definitions miss perfection. They miss the totality of what is there. And so they take upon themselves the task (it isn't an option to abandon it as futile) to correct or improve upon the past definitions (past dogma). And so each theological age finds fault with the one preceding. And it remains to be seen whether the "traditionalists" will drown out their attempts. The pull of tradition is strong. are we not taught that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever? Why can't we, therefore, leave everything alone? Alas, the world won't let us. It forces us to make adjustments. It has done us a great disservice, for example, in not continuing to speak the same language used by the divines who gave us the King James Version. The KJV language is so far out of date that most of the Christians who favor it cannot read it in the original. [In case this statement outrages anyone, check the revision date on your KJV. You will find you have a revision much later than the one commissioned by King James. Great Christian Books has recently published the original. Get a copy and see how well you do.] Scientific developments have presented us with problems and opportunities that seem to call for new applications of the spiritual anodyne. But there is considerable disagreement about how to go about it. The glut of information confuses us. And even when we get some atheist on the run (in a debate) he is able to shift about and hide behind some new scientific theory you aren't familiar with (after all, if you spend all your time studying theology, you won't be equipped to understand his theory). And we are at a disadvantage by not presenting a unified front. The atheist scoffs at us: what view do we present? Surely not the Christian view, for there is no such single view. Are we not merely presenting our own opinion, and what right do we have to say that our opinion is any better than his? Isn't all relative, after all? We do make feeble attempts to solidify our Christian front. Unfortunately these attempts have been advocated with great vehemence by a variety of eloquent theologians (with substantial egos). And if they did not call for a pox on all the houses of those who disagreed with them, surely one of their disciples did. The Church will advance as a result of dialogue (argument) amongst those the Lord has equipped and called to this task. When we become outraged and declare (or think) a pox on all their houses, we may successfully get the dialogue set aside, but it is there waiting for us (or our descendants) to deal with at some future time. All disagreements shall be resolved, but some look about and declare the task humanly impossible and look forward to a resolution in heaven. I find no Biblical justification for such a position. It is no more permissible to accept our disagreements than it is to accept some secret sin. Even if we don't succeed, we are not allowed to excuse ourselves from making the attempt. We must revisit the Reformation and deal with the Roman Catholics. We must revisit Marburg and deal with the Lutherans. We must revisit the Arminians and deal with their objections. It is not enough that those in the past have made attempts and failed. We are not permitted to point to their failures & claim inability. We must make our own attempts. And it is not enough to resurrect the old arguments and use them like the original KJV. We must develop our own language, our own arguments. And what we develop and argue will not be another gospel for it will rise up into the same Spirit that theologians from the past have been raised into. But our arguments may correct a flaw here, provide a superior turn of phrase there, and if the Lord wills provide arguments that will convince the atheist or convert those who have deviated from the one Gospel. Lawrence