apologetic or forensic?
- Get link
- 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
- Other Apps
Popular posts from this blog
“Men and women who saw God in the Bible: Why did they not all die?”
July 2004 I went to Kenya, Africa to speak in two Pastor’s Conferences on the subject of Man, Sin and Salvation. At the end of each day I left just over an hour for questions (half the time were questions touching the subject of my lectures, and the other half for “open questions”; that is, people could ask anything). For the next few weeks, I will be sharing the questions that were asked of me, and my answers—and believe me when I say these people really know how to think! Question from Kenya #1: “Men and women who saw God in the Bible: Why did they not all die?” [“ But He said, ‘You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live! ’” (Exodus 33:20) was the basis of the student’s question]. Answer: First, consider those who did see God—how did they respond when they saw Him? They were instantly aware of their sinfulness, and God’s holiness and righteousness (to name a few. And notice also that each responded in an attitude of worship, bowing down): Abraham built altars, wors
A Sonnet
“My God, where is that ancient heat towards thee, Wherewith whole shoals of martyrs once did burn, Besides their other flames? Doth poetry Wear Venus' livery? only serve her turn? Why are not sonnets made of thee? and lays Upon thine altar burnt? Cannot thy love Heighten a spirit to sound out thy praise As well as any she? Cannot thy Dove Outstrip their Cupid easily in flight? Or, since thy ways are deep, and still the fame, Will not a verse run smooth that bears thy name! Why doth that fire, which by thy power and might Each breast does feel, no braver fuel choose Than that, which one day, worms may chance refuse. Sure Lord, there is enough in thee to dry Oceans of ink; for, as the Deluge did Cover the earth, so doth thy Majesty: Each cloud distills thy praise, and doth forbid Poets to turn it to another use. Roses and lilies speak thee; and to make A pair of cheeks of them, is thy abuse Why should I women's eyes for crystal take? Such poor invention burns in their low mind Wh
Welcome, May!
The past few weeks have been stressful. Training new employees, dealing with difficult customers, not sleeping well, not exercising (I’ve gained 20 pounds in the last two years), getting through family drama (two life-threatening events in the same day, 2000 miles apart: my dad’s heart attack in NM and a 9 year grandchild starting the rest of his life with Type 1 Diabetes) . . . My CrossFit lifestyle withered into oblivion when I lost my job at the University in 2020, as Covid got going. Deep depression brought me to a standstill as I took a few months to try to reset. Since then, my physical status has been on steady decline. Now my daily schedule looks something like this: Work 3-11 pm (on a good day), Go to bed at 4 am, get up between 10:30 am and noon, get booted up and go back to work. If I get one day off a week I’m fortunate. At least I don’t have to work all night for now. That was the worst. So I haven’t had time or energy to do much, even read, much less write. And since my