Anyone who knows me at all knows that the subject of common ground between believers and unbelievers is a topic I take great interest in. My position is that believers and unbelievers lack epistemic common ground and so anything that looks like agreement on the surface is just that - on the surface.
So the article, Paul before the Areopagus: Reflections on the Apostle's Encounter with Cultured Paganism" in the current Philosophia Christi has obvious interest to me. J. Daryl Charles writes:
"Paul is not waxing dishonest in seeking to establish rapport with his audience; he is, however, using wisdom in bridge-building...A very conspicuous strategy in Paul's address is the movement from general to specific. The apostle moves in calculated fashion from general revelatoin (vv. 22-9), which serves as a bridge or common ground between believer and unbeliever, to special revelation..."
We know from Romans 1 that all men know about God, I'm not disputing what Scripture says man knows. I am questioning, however, whether appeals to general revelation are rightly categorized as "common ground" arguments. This is something I've been working to articulate for some time...as some attempt to engage culture with arguments from "common ground" and appeal to Paul's visit to the Areopagus as grounds for doing so, they must remember that Paul wasn't done with his argument until he preached the risen Christ - an obvious proclamation of special revelation.
