There are many forms of announcing the good news of salvation in Christ that remain culturally acceptable in every culture of the world. One of the most deeply rooted and endearing of these forms is dialogue—respectful listening to another’s point of view, questioning them to make sure one has clearly understood them, and then equally clearly explaining one’s own point of view and fielding clarifying questions--what Richard Mouw and John Stackhouse have dubbed “convicted civility.” Remarkably, such conversations usually succeed in having all parties converse forthrightly and with understanding about their most meaningful religious convictions in ways that more confrontational (or even just proclamational) forms do not.
While Blomberg's article may be somewhat instructive, I must ask a question: what is the purpose or goal of this kind of dialogue? Is it just understanding? Or should it be conversion? For some reason, I don't think that Paul was "conversing" in Acts 17 to simply walk away with understanding about other's most meaningful religious convictions. Maybe Blomberg didn't mean this, but I walk away from reading this wondering if he has really captured all of Acts 17 in his article.