Acts 17 and Apologetic Methodology

From Wayne Shih @http://acts18910.blogspot.com

In Part 3 of John Whitcomb's Contemporary Apologetics and the Christian Faith, he examines Paul's apologetic methodology in Acts 17.

Not only did Paul avoid giving any direct reference to Holy Scripture, he even quoted two Greek poets approvingly (Epimenides of Crete in 28a, and Aratus of Cilicia in 28b). Does this mean that he stepped outside of the realm of revealed truth to argue on the basis of human reasoning toward the God of Christianity? Many seem to think so, but the Biblical facts point in a different direction.

It is very important to recognize that before the Mars Hill confrontation began, Paul had already been "preaching Jesus and the resurrection" day after day in the market place of Athens (Acts 17:18). Thus, his Mars Hill address was not presented in a total vacuum. These Greek thinkers wanted to know more about "this new doctrine" (vv. 19-20).

Furthermore, so far from proving the existence of the God of Christianity, Paul simply and authoritatively declared Him to these men (v. 23). He declared this God to be the Creator and the Lord of the world and of mankind (vv. 24-26). He declared the nearness and thus the accessibility of God to mankind (vv. 27-28), and the utter ignorance of idolatry (vv. 29-30). And, finally, he announced that this great God will some day judge all men through that resurrected man whom Paul had previously named as Jesus (vv. 18, 31); and, therefore, He "is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent" (v. 30).

See also Eric Zeller's treatment (pdf) of the Acts 17 passage. He quotes Robert Reymond:

Only a cursory reading of Acts will disclose that Peter, Stephen, Philip, and Paul, in their missionary sermons to the nations, never urge lost men to do anything other than to repent of sin and bow in faith before the God who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ for men’s salvation. They never imply in their argumentation that their hearers may legitimately question the existence of the Christian God, the truth of Scripture, or the historicity of the death and resurrection of Christ prior to personal commitment. Never do they by their appeal to ‘evidence’… imply that such evidence ‘probably’ vindicates their message… these ‘kerygmatics’ regarded their message as an inconvertible witness, the inherent authority of which renders the believer and skeptic culpable of ‘making God a liar’ (1 John 5:10) when they refuse to believe.