How N.T. Wright and Josh McDowell Are Similar

29 Oct

Josh McDowell and NT Wright both believe in apologetics.  Both believe the Scriptures, and God, need to be defended because God (and Scripture) are insufficient in and of themselves.

Such a view (shared by a shocking many) is actually a devaluation of God and Scripture, because the stronger always defends the weaker and the weaker is always in need of defense by the stronger.

Therefore, unknown to the apologists, they actually play right into the hands of atheists and blasphemers because in ‘defending’ God they make God weak.

Let God be God.  The only defense God needs is none.  The only defense Scripture needs is to be heard in its own voice.  If people are unwilling to accept God as God, so what?  If people reject the revelation contained in Scripture, what is that to you?  They and they alone stand naked in the presence of God to give an account for their folly.  As will those, by the way, who arrogate to themselves the title of ‘God’s defenders’.

God needs you to defend him as much as a lion needs a flea to protect it.


Posted by on 29 Oct 2010 in Theology



11 responses to “How N.T. Wright and Josh McDowell Are Similar

  1. agathos

    29 Oct 2010 at 4:03 pm

    They’re similar in this way: neither are as awesome or convincing as Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Yeah, Way of the Master!

    No really, apologetics is often mind-numbingly pointless, and often, quite logically truncated.


  2. S. Daniel Owens

    29 Oct 2010 at 4:21 pm

    What is you source for this regarding N.T. Wright? I know his material fairly well and I am unaware of this claim of his.



    • Jim

      29 Oct 2010 at 4:42 pm

      ‘the resurrection story is so bizarre it must have happened’ comes immediately to mind. that, sir, is apologetics.


  3. diglot

    29 Oct 2010 at 4:45 pm

    Not a fan at all of McDowell, but I really enjoy Wright’s works. Jim, how can you resist his silky smooth accent?!?!


    • Jim

      29 Oct 2010 at 4:46 pm

      i’ve heard better.


  4. steph

    29 Oct 2010 at 5:32 pm

    silky smooth? scoff – he can barely sound his ‘r’s. Only one person in the world has a silky smooth ‘accent’ and God forgive him, he’s american, not a blinking pom.


  5. Emerson Fast

    29 Oct 2010 at 5:52 pm

    Sounds like someone’s been reading KD 1.1 recently 😉


    • Jim

      29 Oct 2010 at 6:46 pm

      learned that valuable lesson from brunner actually.


  6. Paul D.

    29 Oct 2010 at 10:35 pm

    Overall, I’m very impressed by Wright’s ideas, but I agree that his apologetic sentiment comes through and detracts from some of his conclusions. I think he could really provide some revolutionary insights if he let go of those presuppositions.


  7. J.C.

    11 Dec 2010 at 4:42 am

    Dr. West,

    Hey, I don’t think apologetics is about defending God, rather it’s defending your beliefs to others. This, I believe, is extremely important. (Also, apologetics can help strengthen your faith, among other things)

    The Apostle Paul, for example, argued his case for Christ, all the while critiquing other beliefs that went against his.

    “So he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” (Acts 17:17)

    When Paul was defending his ministry one thing written was, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:5)

    Liked by 1 person