A dear brother whom I esteem name Craig last week brought up some thoughts for conversation based upon my Apologetics Session 2: No Neutrality post. He wrote:
I’ve thought a lot of about non-neutrality–what it might be. I’m not sure what to think about Paul on Mars Hill/the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-31). It seems to me he ‘compromised’ a bit, by engaging them at their level. And I’m not saying that was/is a bad thing.
He took their altar to THE UNKNOWN GOD and explained this as their mistaking this ‘unknown deity’ for the True God. Yet he is careful not to outright denigrate their belief system, though he does in a round-about way in his assertion that God does not dwell in human-made ‘temples’, and His nature cannot be reduced to mere silver or gold. In other words, his explanation for (and to counter their version of) THE UNKNOWN GOD does, by implication, apply to their altars to their other ‘deities’. Yet at the same time, he didn’t explicitly speak against their idols/’deities’.
So, was the Apostle completely ‘neutral’ in his speech/preaching here?
I thought I share my thoughts.
The Domain for Truth 