apologetic or forensic?
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Two words have received some attention lately in my closer circles of discussion: “forensic” and “apologetic”. We found it shameful yet humorous that we could all describe ways in which “forensic” could be used, but no one was able to actually define the word! One person theorized the irony, “if we went to the dictionary and found the definition to be, ‘that exercise by which one sets about to determine the definition of this very word.’”
In case you are wondering, “forensic” can be used as a noun, adverb (“forensically”) or as an adjective. The word “forensic” is from the Latin forensis, meaning “belonging to the market, public” and it’s root forum, meaning “what is out of doors, public in place.” Webster tells us the adjective “belongs to or is used in or is suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate.” Another meaning is “argumentative, rhetorical.” Yet another: “relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems.” As a noun, “forensic” refers to the argumentative exercise, even the art or study of argumentative discourse.
One other word that came to mind was “apologetic” namely that Greek word “apologia” referring to that, “offered in defense or vindication” as opposed to that “regretfully acknowledging fault or failure.” As a singular noun, “apologetics” has become that “systematic argumentative discourse in defense.” Also, “a branch of theology devoted to the defense of divine origin and authority of Christianity.”
I just cannot help but wonder if our application and usage of the terms are correct. If “forensic” includes public discourse, then this is more closely related to lecturing. Since the word also includes that which is in the context of the courts, wouldn’t this imply that the evidence we now have accumulated and present as Christian “apologetics” is really Christian “forensic?” And if this is the case, what is Christian apologetics? What did Peter really have in mind as a rational biblical defense of hope, namely the propositions of scripture: God is holy, man is sinful, the full atoning work of Christ Jesus on the cross, etc.. . .which is clearly not the “evidentialism” as we present as “apologetics” today. I am certain Peter did not have volumes of Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler or Greg Koukel much less any of Augustine's writings sitting on his shelf when he wrote to the persecuted Christians encouraging them to be prepared with an "apologia."
What is the hope of our faith? "The credibility of Christianity based on the preparation, uniqueness and reliability of the Bible, its persons, places and things, as confirmed by archaeology in light of God's work in the lives of men and women throughout history?" (The forensic approach)
OR
The withstanding through suffering because of the hope found in Christ Jesus, that one is saved from the power of sin and will be delivered from the presence of sin because of His finished work on the cross, resurrection from the dead, exaltation at the Father's right hand and immenent return? (apologetic)
Thoughtful discussion ("feedback") is appreciated.
In case you are wondering, “forensic” can be used as a noun, adverb (“forensically”) or as an adjective. The word “forensic” is from the Latin forensis, meaning “belonging to the market, public” and it’s root forum, meaning “what is out of doors, public in place.” Webster tells us the adjective “belongs to or is used in or is suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate.” Another meaning is “argumentative, rhetorical.” Yet another: “relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems.” As a noun, “forensic” refers to the argumentative exercise, even the art or study of argumentative discourse.
One other word that came to mind was “apologetic” namely that Greek word “apologia” referring to that, “offered in defense or vindication” as opposed to that “regretfully acknowledging fault or failure.” As a singular noun, “apologetics” has become that “systematic argumentative discourse in defense.” Also, “a branch of theology devoted to the defense of divine origin and authority of Christianity.”
I just cannot help but wonder if our application and usage of the terms are correct. If “forensic” includes public discourse, then this is more closely related to lecturing. Since the word also includes that which is in the context of the courts, wouldn’t this imply that the evidence we now have accumulated and present as Christian “apologetics” is really Christian “forensic?” And if this is the case, what is Christian apologetics? What did Peter really have in mind as a rational biblical defense of hope, namely the propositions of scripture: God is holy, man is sinful, the full atoning work of Christ Jesus on the cross, etc.. . .which is clearly not the “evidentialism” as we present as “apologetics” today. I am certain Peter did not have volumes of Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler or Greg Koukel much less any of Augustine's writings sitting on his shelf when he wrote to the persecuted Christians encouraging them to be prepared with an "apologia."
What is the hope of our faith? "The credibility of Christianity based on the preparation, uniqueness and reliability of the Bible, its persons, places and things, as confirmed by archaeology in light of God's work in the lives of men and women throughout history?" (The forensic approach)
OR
The withstanding through suffering because of the hope found in Christ Jesus, that one is saved from the power of sin and will be delivered from the presence of sin because of His finished work on the cross, resurrection from the dead, exaltation at the Father's right hand and immenent return? (apologetic)
Thoughtful discussion ("feedback") is appreciated.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Popular posts from this blog
The Smooth-flowing Life
Legend has it that the astronomer Ptolemy (1st century A.D.) suggested that falling stars were caused by the gods moving in the heavens, thus knocking stars out of their places. Somehow people reasoned that that if the gods were moving, they must be getting close to earth so they would lift their "prayers" or "wishes" (literally, "desires") whenever they saw the stars falling in hopes the gods would notice and grant a favorable answer. But how does one wish on falling star? Once you see it, it's gone before the wish or prayer can be made! The answer is simple: meteor shower. That's how to get your wish. Mrs. Ann Hodges had a wish fall right into her lap. Sort of. In 1954 Mrs. Hodges was sleeping on the couch when a 8 1/2 pound meteorite fell through her house and into her living room where it bounced off the radio and struck her left hip leaving her with a bruise. Not sure what she was wishing, but that's not how to do it. Epictetus hel...