Biblical Exposition
Understanding of the antithesis between the people of God and the people of the world is the sine qua non to the very message and prophecy of the fulfilling work of Christ. Christ's Word is, from beginning to end, replete with verses which speak of, imply, or underscore this fundamental antipathy, whether philosophically in terms of controlling worldviews (Col. 2:8), particular epistemologies (Rom. 8:7; cf. Prov. 1:7; 9:10), or conflicting ethical standards on how man should live (Rom. 1:26-32; cf. Gal. 5:19-21). The theme of antithesis is even undergirded in the Gospel message in preaching salvation to sinners such that they can be called "out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9), "walk[ing] as children of light" (Eph. 5:8b), "not conform[ing] to this world, but be[ing] transformed by the renewal of [their] mind" (Rom. 12:2).
So central is this antithesis that it is first declared at the beginning of the Bible. Genesis 3:15, often regarded as the protoevangelium verse, is the first pronouncement of God's crushing defeat of the Serpent and His restorative work to save His chosen people:
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
Adam and Eve were to be morally and epistemologically dependent upon God's revelation to them in order to truly understand the world aright and to follow His commands (Gen. 2:16-17, 20). Instead, upon the beguiling of the serpent, man took it upon himself to determine what the "real" moral and epistemological situations were. Rather than obeying the Lord, their God, in abstaining from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they autonomously determined what was and was not immoral, what was and was not rational, elevating the intellectual credence of their minds into a just-as-credible source of knowledge apart from God's revelation and injunctions imposed upon them. It was this moral and epistemological abrogation which germinated the antithesis, even at the beginning of history-God's moral indictment in Genesis 3:15 prophesied this antithesis up until the crushing defeat of the Tempter by His Son in Israel's distinctness among all the other nations (Deut. 7:6-7), after His propitiating crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension (Rom. 12:2; cf. Eph. 5:8-11), and into all of eternity as God's judicial curse is inflicted upon those who rejected Him (Matt. 8:12; cf. 1 John 2:15). Quite clearly, then, if we are to employ a faithfully biblical apologetic, we cannot do so with an unbiblical understanding of both the natural man and the epistemological hostility imposed between both parties.
Survey
Genealogy
The sagacious shortcoming of Adam and Eve in questioning God's infallible revelation to them resulted in a bifurcation for the rest of human history. Even in the subsequent generation there already was hostility between Cain and Abel two parties, two offerings, in which one's offering was accepted and the other's rejected, leading to Cain's subsequent indignation and the murdering of his brother. This antithesis continued to spread between the generations and descendants of Cain and Seth until God's decimation of mankind during the time of Noah. The seed of Shem distinguished from his brothers' reintroduced the antithesis, and from here onward Genesis lays out its linear course: the line of Abraham is chosen over all other families (Gen. 12-15), the line of Isaac over Ishmael (Gen. 16-18), the line of Jacob over Esau (Gen. 25), and so on and so forth until the incarnation of the Christ.
The Law and the Nations
We see the antithesis in inter-civilizational affairs when God picked Israel over all of the other nations, despite being the nations with the "fewest of all peoples..." (Deut. 7:7). It was because the Lord loved them that He "[kept] the oath that he swore to [their] fathers" (v. 8). It was because the Lord loved them that He gave them His holy Law and not the other nations. Moreover, His law calls for, and requires, repentance and a turning-away from sin to be a "holy" people (Lev. 11:44-45)-a nation who loves the Lord their God with all of their hearts, a nation who worships God, not autonomous, exalted human reason as did those in Shinar, having "one language and the same words," erecting a tower to Heaven (Gen. 11:1-9; cf. Rom. 1:18-32).
The Psalms
This antithesis is further exemplified in the Imprecatory Psalms, where we often read of broken strength (Ps. 38:10; 88:4; 102:23), hopelessness (Ps. 22:1-2; 69:1-3; 143:3-4), and the constant threat from God's enemies seeking to conquer (Ps. 35:1-3; 140:1-3; 144:11-12).
The New Testament
In the New Testament, Christ, the very God who ordained the antithesis from the beginning, makes plain the ultimate dilemma presented before man: "He who is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30; Luke 11:23), for "no man can serve two masters." (Matt. 6:24).
The Apostle John emphasizes not to be yoked with the people of the world, for "if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15). In fact, he even underscores this antithesis when he says not to even be surprised "that the world hates you." (1 John 3:13). It is precisely "because you are not of the world" (John 15:19) that "the world hates you." James concurs that "...whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." (Jm. 4:4).
Paul uses the imagery of contrast between light and darkness in Ephesians 5 when he commands the church in Ephesus to "not become partners with those of the world. He continues, observing that "for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light..." (Eph. 5:7-8). He uses the same imagery in his letter to Corinth: "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" (2 Cor. 6:14). And John concurs with Paul: "If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:6-7).
From this short survey we see the basic underlying thread of a fundamental and categorical antithesis between the people of God and the people of the world. Failure to observe this is failure to understand the covenantal relation Christians have with God. Failure to observe this leads to a failure in Christian life. And failure to observe this will lead to a failure of the Biblical mandate of apologetics the Apostle Peter makes.
Unbelieving Thought
When considering the spiritual warfare and antithesis between believers and unbelievers, there would be (or should be) no disagreement between Christians with differing theological and apologetical views every Christian would hear the message of antithesis from behind the pulpit and strive to live their lives in light of that view. They will openly embrace the antithesis when they hear Paul say to put to death "what is earthly in you" (Col. 3:5). They will openly embrace the antithesis when they hear John's warning not to "love the world or the things in the world" (1 John 2:15). Yet most Christians in apologetics, whether willfully or unwittingly, disregard it when engaging with unbelievers. Apparently, the antithesis applies to the spiritual situation only-an antithesis of sinful lifestyle and spiritual warfare which can only be changed by the power of Christ. It is this error and theological inconsistency which needs to be exposed in light of the Biblical (or revelational) viewpoint.
Consequences of Unbelief
If a genuine Christian seeks to live his life in accordance with the biblical antithesis in mind, he must submit to Scripture when it speaks also of antithesis in terms of one's thinking.
Foolish
In the Old Testament alone we see a direct and incontrovertible consequence of agnostic or unbelieving Thought: "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." (Ps. 14:1). To King Solomon God makes the situation more explicit: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Prov. 1:7; 9:10). To the Romans Paul writes: "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools." (Rom. 1:21-22). He reinforces this when he writes to the Ephesians that we "must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds" (Eph. 4:17). And to the church in Corinth Paul rhetorically asks, "Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Cor. 1:20), for indeed "...the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight (1 Cor. 3:19a).
Darkened
Paul also describes explicitly the consequences and conditions of this libertine lifestyle and thinking as being "darkened": "They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity." (Eph. 4:18-19). In Romans 1 these "dishonorable passions" (v. 26a) are again laid out by Paul: "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Rom. 1:26b-27). And the catalyst for this nefarious, licentious lifestyle is precisely because unbelievers are darkened in their understanding: "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (v. 21).
Vain Deceit
Thirdly, Paul describes the natural man who is spiritually virulent towards God as being deceptive in his thinking. In his letter to Ephesus, speaking of the believers' former lifestyle, he refers to their former ways as being "corrupt[ed] through deceptive desires" (Eph. 4:22b). In cautioning the Colossians Paul warns, "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and vain deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." (Col. 2:8 ASV).
Applicability In Apologetics
The epistemological antithesis is clear: fearing the Lord, having Him as the foundation of your thinking, is the only way by which genuine knowledge can be obtained (Prov. 1:7; 9:10); rejecting Christ in your thinking makes you a fool (cf. Col. 2:8). Paul repeatedly-especially in Romans 1- states what the consequences of unbelieving thought and behavior are. Paul's rhetorical question of asking where the "debater of this age" is entails that there are none. There are none because God has made worldly thought "foolish," "darkened," and "vain" and "deceptive." He goes so far as allowing Satan to blind them: "[T]he god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers..." (2 Cor. 4:4a).
Quite clearly, then, the Christian apologist should not attempt to reason as the unbeliever does when he is so intellectually perverse in not fearing the Lord, who is the Source of all knowledge. The contrast of light and darkness both Paul and John use is not relegated to salvific status only. The spiritual darkness of unbelieving thought (which we have been brought out of) leads to an intellectual darkness, too. And Paul is emphatic when he tells the Ephesians, "But that is not the way you learned Christ!" (Eph. 4:20).
Unfortunately, Christian apologists who attempt to argue in a neutral, supposedly open-minded fashion with unbelievers end up contradicting themselves. From behind the pulpit they hear of the noetic effects of sin, even having preached to them the above verses, and gladly accept it in church, but then either forget or neglect this fundamental antithesis between him and the unbeliever on the street, opting to argue "with" the unbeliever in a supposed neutral fashion. These Christian apologists would, in genuine, saving faith, not waiver in their commitments to Christ if they were threatened with death for their faith, but then they do waiver in their commitments to Christ in their very philosophies when engaging with unbelieving Thought, emphasizing that neutrality and open-mindedness is the most important aspect rather than setting Christ apart as Lord in their hearts (1 Pet. 3:15) and in their philosophies (Col. 2:8). This theological inconsistency must be exposed.
The Sin of Neutrality
To be sure, our natural inclination for rational debate centers around this aspect of being neutral and open-minded-as objective as possible. After all, we're told, sectarian prejudice will skew the argument given, regardless of the viewpoint. Such a conception takes for granted the fact, however, that this is an impossibility when it comes to certain assumptions-presuppositions. These fundamental assumptions determine how we see the world, such as religion or politics, not merely how we see a particular circumstance such as whether it will rain in an hour. After all, why is it that we all know not to talk about religion or politics at the Thanksgiving table? Because these beliefs are presuppositional or foundational in character.
The Christian's fundamental presupposition, undergirding all of his other presuppositions, is first and foremost his faith in the triune God. This was exemplified perfectly by the Apostle Paul when he gave his apologetic. In Acts 17, against the Greek philosophers, Paul sets forth the antithesis at the outset of his apologetic!: "What you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you." (Acts 17:23b). He then immediately goes on to exegete Scripture in vv. 24-31 in defending his faith, perfectly exemplifying that he held to a philosophy which is "according to Christ" (Col. 2:8), hence his injunction. Paul explicitly lays out the antithesis in the pronouns he uses: "what you,"-"this I" and subsequently stands on revelational authority.
Unfortunately, the modern apologist will not have that. Instead, he attempts to attenuate the antithesis under the misconception that we must be neutral in apologetic engagement, completely disregarding Scripture when It speaks of the unbeliever's foolish thinking, darkened understanding, and deceptive philosophy. We should, at least for the time being, put the Bible aside, casting Christ aside in the process rather than sanctifying Him as Lord (1 Pet. 3:15), and "go to the facts." We ought to reason over what the historical and archaeological evidence suggests, ought to reason over what the rational proofs for God's existence suggest, and hope to come to a conclusion close enough to get to Christ.
In addition to the misguided apologetical notion that we can all reason neutrally, we also hear of this notion that no one has a claim to dogmatism; we as finite humans can only argue probabilistically at best, and thus in the process of being neutral we must also be "humble" of this fact. This, in effect, is but an extension of neutralist thinking. And yet you find this nowhere in Paul's apologetic either-a paragon example of how apologetics should be done. One will not find in verses 24-31 the slightest hint of probabilistic thinking and argumentation from Paul. He, again, never waivers in his commitment to Christ and His Word, despite the Greeks not even believing in God. Was Paul mistaken? Was he being arrogant in his dogmatism? Or was he "holding to the faithful word...that he may be able both to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers" (Tit. 1:9 ASV)?
Neutralist thinking in apologetics erases the fundamental distinction between the believer and the unbeliever; it selectively accepts and affirms certain aspects of the antithesis set in place by God (moral and salvific) but then denies another, just-as-important aspect (rational or noetic). If the apologist fails to sanctify Christ as Lord in his heart (1 Pet. 3:15), instead opting for some supposed open-minded, neutral debate, he fails the biblical mandate on how apologetics should be done. It is, in effect, sin to be neutral and reason apart from standing on Scripture as Paul did-reasoning over historical, empirical, or rational evidence apart from the knowledge God give us in the Bible. The very reasoning ability of the unbeliever, on his own principles, is "foolish," "darkened," and "deceptive." And since neutral thinking is to cast the Bible aside (even if temporarily) and in the process arguing the same way the unbeliever does, the apologist likewise argues in such a defective fashion.
The Proper Apologetical Approach
Bahnsen aptly says, "[T]he antithesis between the thinking of the believer and thinking of the unbeliever must be systematic and total." He rightfully understands (as Van Til belabored) that the antithesis covers the intellectual domain as well, not merely the spiritual. Historical apologetics has blurred this antithesis, and in that sense has failed to employ a truly faithful apologetic.
In Proverbs 26:4-5 God gives us the proper instruction on how apologetical debate with the unbeliever should proceed:
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. (Proverbs 26:4-5)
The fool is someone who says, "[T]here is no God" (Ps. 19:1); he is someone "darkened in [his] understanding" since he despises the wisdom the God he rejects gives (Prov. 1:7). We first and foremost, then, do not argue according to the unbeliever's philosophy of life "lest you become like him yourself." While Christian apologists certainly do not revoke their faith-commitments in debating unbelievers, they in principle argue like unbelievers do in arguing apart from the Bible. Thus, in presuming to defend the faith to the glory of God, they ironically end up in the pitfall of v. 4 in arguing just like the fool, just like the unbeliever - using autonomous reasoning apart from fearing and sanctifying the Lord in their hearts at the outset, setting the wisdom and Word of God aside for the sake of appeasement. Rather than confronting the unbeliever with the authority of Scripture as Paul did, they instead default to questions such as: "What caused the universe?"; "Doesn't the universe exhibit design from a higher designer?" And worse still, implied in such questions by the traditional apologist is nothing more than the notion of a bare or generic theism, not Christian-theism in particular, thus failing to follow Paul's apologetic example. His method is, in effect, on its head - in his apologetic he would use a non-Christ-centered philosophy in order to win the unbeliever over to a Christ-centered philosophy.
Contrary to this, the presuppositionalist only argues like a fool in order to expose the foolishness of rejecting God, showing the utter absurdity of his philosophy and worldview, silencing him, "...lest he be wise in his own eyes." (v. 5). Apologetics must be employed as a philosophy which is after Christ, not according to worldly principles (Col. 2:8). When Christ lays out the dichotomy that one is either for Him or against Him (Matt. 12:30; Luke 11:23), this principle no less applies to the realm of thinking and apologetics. What third option does the apologist have? To put Christ at the center of his life but not in the center of his argument? The harsh truth is that this is a resultant schizophrenia wherein the apologist believes one thing (i.e., having Christ at the center of his life and fearing the Lord as the beginning and foundation for knowledge (Prov. 1:7)) but acts in a contradictory way (defending the Faith without Christ at the center of his argumentation), thinking he is being consistently faithful.
What's interesting about the injunction of Proverbs 26:5 in answering a fool (the unbeliever) "according to his folly" is that it requires a presuppositional approach. That is, the unbeliever's folly is not in his assumptions that it will rain in an hour or that he would be cited if he was caught speeding, but rather his presuppositions concerning the fundamental issues of reality as we know it: is there a god? are we alone in the universe? do we need a god to be moral? and so forth. On his own presuppositions he reduces himself to a foolish philosophy of life filled with "empty deceit" (Col. 2:8), and this can only be exposed via a presuppositional cross-examination of conflicting worldviews. Such a presuppositional apologetic openly exposes and acknowledges the antithesis between believer and unbeliever; it follows after Paul's example in not wavering from the authority of Christ in Scripture, and in the process fulfills the apologetical mandate in 1 Peter 3:15.
To be sure, any apologist has the ability to cross-examine the unbeliever, his theological inconsistency notwithstanding. That is, he may cross-examine his unbelieving opponent over a particular point such as evolution coming about by sheer chance and serendipity apart from a god to show such an absurdity, but then he still argues like an unbeliever in the sense of casting the Bible to the side for the sake of finding a common, neutral starting point which leads to foolish and darkened thinking. He may not genuinely be "[taken] captive by philosophy...not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8), but does that warrant still arguing in like fashion? If as Christians we are not to be thieves, does that mean we can still selectively steal?
The apologetical mandate God gives in Proverbs necessitates a presuppositional approach and a purely presuppositional approach. If apologetics is not truly presuppositional through and through, the apologetical schizophrenia is exposed in the adjacent verse: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself" (Prov. 26:4). While a classical apologist or evidentialist may employ a reductio argument against the unbeliever, he normatively does so under the context of particular issue (as mentioned above), such as believing in evolution without a higher power, or believing that nature must have a cause-issues which do not go for the root of the unbeliever's epistemology.
The Argument Exegeted
With the abundance of verses adduced from God's revelation concerning the proper apologetical approach, we can lay out the argument exegetically, point-by-point:
(P1): The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. (Prov. 1:7a)
(P2): There is no fear of the Lord in the unbeliever's eyes. (Ps. 36:1; Rom. 3:18)
(P3): Therefore, the unbeliever is a fool who despises wisdom. (Ps. 14:1; Prov. 1:7b)
(C): Therefore, do not argue like a fool, lest you become like him. (Prov. 26:4)
Scripture lays out a philosophical dichotomy, and only a dichotomy: adherence to a foolish and darkened philosophy "not according to Christ," or adherence to a renewed philosophy in which we "sanctify in [our] hearts Christ as Lord." As it turns out, then, the dichotomy Christ lays out in either being with Him or against Him permeates even into the realms of philosophy and apologetics themselves the antithesis Christ categorizes in Matt. 12:30 & Luke 11:23 is, as Bahnsen says, total, not partial or selective. As such, the double-standard of traditional apologists must be exposed- the God-ordained antithesis from the beginning does not affect the moral and salvific domains only, but also the domain of the intellect when engaging in apologetics. The impossibility of neutrality allows only for two possibilities: reasoning with the unbeliever with Christ and His Scripture as the foundation for your argumentation, or reasoning autonomously with the Bible cast aside so as to appear objective. And if arguing like the fool in reasoning apart from the Bible reduces to epistemological suicide, what recourse does the traditional apologist have?
The Failure of Historical Apologetics
There is no "No Man's Land" in apologetic engagement-the God-ordained antithesis precludes such a possibility. In attempting to argue in an unbiblical (neutral) fashion traditional apologists have abrogated Peter's injunction of placing Christ in the heart of their argument. In attempting to argue in a neutral fashion traditional apologists only end up reasoning like the fool himself, in the process becoming exactly like him in utilizing an autonomous philosophy in hopes of winning him over to a Christ-centered philosophy-the schizophrenic consequence of misconstrued exegesis.
Nowhere in the Bible will you find a commendation of the unbeliever's autonomous reasoning. On the contrary, Scripture is replete and perspicuous in its categorical dividing between the unbeliever's "foolish," "darkened," "vain," and "deceptive" reasoning, and the salvation of knowledge through, and only through, the "fear of the Lord," - submission to His revelation. Why, then, has historical apologetics neglected these verses? Surely the apologist will acknowledge the moral and salvific antithesis in that we must die to our former self and be alive in Christ (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 2:20); we cannot live as the unbeliever lives, according to worldly passions (Tit. 2:12; Col. 3:5). Why, then, does he partake in the autonomous, "open-minded" reasoning of the unbeliever in apologetics when the antithesis is just as clear in the conflict of reasoning?
This failure comes from the apologist acknowledging the obvious fact that his unbelieving opponent is of course a rational creature; he knows his field of study, he knows the qualifications of what it is to be logical and what it is not to be. But the historical apologist then fallaciously conflates the natural situation of the unbeliever's thinking with the supernatural situation of him being darkened in his reasoning against God. The historical apologist does not acknowledge the fact that his opponent, not seeking God (Rom. 3:11), has an axe to grind. He does not acknowledge the fact that his unbelieving opponent will therefore, at all costs, argue against the very God which gives him the ability to be rational as His image-bearer. He does not acknowledge the fact that, while his opponent possesses knowledge, his rejection of Christ as the foundation of his philosophy is precisely what leads to a distorted, "foolish" understanding of both man and the world.
The situation is clear: if the historical apologist submits to Scripture and acknowledges the moral antithesis between his new, holy way of living and the unbeliever's sinful way, he must also submit to Scripture when it speaks of the epistemological ruin of his opponent's position, arguing by casting Christ aside in order to appease the unbeliever by being neutral and "objective" in the matter. Such is impossible, for all people-believers and unbelievers-hold to presuppositional biases. And as long as these foundational assumptions are not dealt with, as long as the unbeliever's assumption of his presumed rational autonomy from God remains untouched, we have failed in apologetics.
Acts 17 gives no clearer example of the necessity of acknowledging the epistemological antithesis between Christian and non-Christian at the outset. And 1 Peter 3 gives no clearer injunction in sanctifying Christ as Lord in your heart when engaging in apologetics, let alone philosophy which is after Him (Col. 2:8).
In attempting to attenuate the antithesis between the Christian and the unbeliever the traditional apologist employs an apologetic that does not remain faithful to God. Fortunately, even if "we are faithless [to God], he remains faithful [to us]" (2 Tim. 2:13). Earlier in the same chapter Paul commands Timothy to be "a good soldier of Christ Jesus" (v. 3). A good soldier is faithful to his chief commander, and as soldiers of Christ we must likewise remain faithful to Him, our "chief Shepherd" (1 Pet. 5:4) and "chief Cornerstone" (Acts 4:11 NKJV). Thus, we must emulate the way in which Paul argued to the unbelieving Greek philosophers. Not only did he stand on the authority of God's revelation throughout his apologetic discourse (in spite of the Greeks' unbelief), he acknowledged the antithesis between him and the Greeks at the outset: "What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you." (Acts 17:23b). He doesn't utilize an empirical method where we look at the history or historiography of Christ's people. Nor does he utilize a rationalistic approach where we attempt to observe common philosophical issues in hopes of getting to God, such as whether or not the universe had a designer or cause, or what fundamental axioms they may have in common. Rather, Paul begins with God and His revelation, and in so doing he begins acknowledging the antithesis, not neutrality.
As long as the apologist begins with (or says he begins with) the authority of Scripture he cannot escape the antithesis between the regenerate and unregenerate. Counterintuitive as it may be to our human reasoning, we must obey God in what He says of the apologetic enterprise. The antithesis must be underscored, not diminished. We either argue "with" Christ in our apologetic arguments or "against" Him in casting Him aside, even if for the sake of argumentation, disobeying the Chief Apostle's command (1 Pet. 3:15).
The point of contact we seek to find with our unbelieving opponent is not, then, in a common method, argument, or axiom as historical apologetics would have it. It cannot be in a common method, argument, or axiom because God demands through His Word a dogmatic, unwavering commitment to Christ at the outset of our apologetic (1 Pet. 3:15) and in our entire philosophies of life (Col. 2:8). Rather, the common ground between the Christian apologist and the non-Christian unbeliever is metaphysical (and moral) in nature-both the believer and unbeliever are creatures of God living in God's Creation, and both are held to the same moral standards before Him. Paul's Scripture-centered, presuppositionally-unwavering apologetic gives credence to this fact, too. When he lays down the antithesis ("What...you worship... this I proclaim"), he is setting down from the outset the epistemological differences between who the two parties worship. Verse 23 could therefore be worded as: "What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you from the God I worship."-two conflicting, ultimate epistemological authorities or standards. But in the very next verse Paul makes the metaphysical point of contact just as plain: "The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth..." (v. 24). Such a God would therefore have made both Paul and the Greek philosophers whom he was giving his apologetic to. Paul could have said, "You, too, are creatures of this God I am proclaiming to you!" And in verse 30 he subsequently lays out the moral situation: "... [God] commands all people everywhere to repent...."
Scripture makes clear what the proper apologetic method should be from Paul's Areopagus Address. Emphasizing and acknowledging at all times the antithesis does not undermine the enterprise of apologetics as though argumentation would be rendered useless, so long as it is understood in light of how Scripture presents it. God's inescapable revelation makes the unbeliever culpable for his unbelief and always presses upon his conscience as His image-bearer. At all times he is faced with it; at all times that point of contact is accessible to the apologist. He must always press the unbeliever with this fact-Christ and His Revelation must be at the center of the apologist's argument. If, as a Christian Christ is your "everything," then He should be present in everything you do, including apologetics. To put Christ at the center of your life but not at the center of your apologetic is simply self-contradictory.
Discussion