This comes from my studies involving John Calvin. Among those studies are two guiding principles used by Calvin and I came across the following summation from my professor (Dr. Waldron) about the honor of Christ that particularly hit me that I will share with you here.
Maintaining the glory of the Lord involves entirely renouncing all glory of our own. This renunciation is in order to give all praise for righteousness to the Lord.See the Institutes of the Christian Religion at 3:13:3 for the full text this is based
If you don’t know, this is a post that helps you the reader to become more acquainted with where I – the author of this site – stand on various topics and theological points. Keep reading to see where I stand on today’s topic.
In Christian Apologetics, there are often two particular angles on “defending the faith” that are taken and those would be presuppositional apologetics and classical apologetics – arguably there are others but I’ll keep it to these two. There are many today who would side quite staunchly with one or the other too. I am not one of those.
I have long since been more of a big-picture sort of thinker and over the course of my life you could have made an argument for my being more closely connected to one type of apologetics over another. Today, I would certainly side most with presuppositional as it more readily takes into account the root assumptions we have in our beliefs – something people of all backgrounds (even non-Christian ones) have. Even so, I’m not against using evidence-based arguments when they make sense to and I’m certainly not against using reason/logic argumentation – I just don’t depend solely on these things.
Despite what others may say for their own views they inevitably have root assumptions too such that if they argue they’re logic/evidence based, they’re more or less like me whether they recognize it or not. They just may tilt much more strongly toward logic/evidence-based arguments.
In the end and in line with my more “big-picture” way of thinking, I take on a larger view of apologetics that, admittedly, favors presuppositional apologetics but not to the point of excluding the methods of other apologetic practices including those found in the classical approach.
Note: I do these posts not because I think I’m somehow superior in my views or anything absurd like that but out of a desire to be up-front and honest with my readers as to where I stand. Otherwise, you’d be left to figure things out by reading between the lines and/or guessing.
Have further questions? Is my answer too vague?
Please comment on the post and I will make an effort to respond in a timely manner!