Apologetics Q&A Pt 4: Classical Apologetics

Q: What is the "classical" approach to apologetics and what are its strengths and weaknesses?  How does this approach stack up against the presuppositional approach?

Classical apologetics is a two step approach to arguing for the Christian world view.  First it argues for a god, and after offering what it views as satisfactory arguments, it then progresses to arguing for the Christian triune God.  

There are some positive aspects of classical apologetics.  It seeks to show that faith and reason are consistent, which is a noble aim and has been of service to countless believers, buttressing their faith.  Also the classical approach historically has been at the forefront of the apologetic efforts of the church as the preferred method of many staunch defenders of orthodoxy like Augustine, Hugo Grotius and B.B. Warfield.  That said, while I love and respect many who hold to the classical apologetic method, I don’t think that it is the best approach to defending the Christian faith.  

Classical apologist William Lane Craig describes the classical apologetic method as “first to present arguments for theism which aim to show that God’s existence is at least more probable than not and then to present evidences, probabilistically construed for God’s revelation in Christ.”  

 While there are a number of methodological problems with this approach, this statement reveals the chief (and fatal) flaw with the classical approach to apologetics.  Apologetics is, at its root, an evangelistic enterprise, and souls are at stake.  In that context “more probable than not” is simply not good enough.  When engaged in this kind of encounter we must show with certainty that Christian faith is the only right world view.

Another key problem with this two step approach to apologetics is it leads the door open for an unbeliever to accept a theistic world view yet reject Christianity.  A person may acknowledge a god yet still deny the existence of God and thus be as lost as any atheist.  This in fact happened to noted atheist Antony Flew who at the age 81 announced that the teleological argument for God convinced him that there must be a super-intelligent creator.  However he did not become a Christian, but rather a deist, and thus still died in his sins.  

This is not surprising.  One of the most popular arguments for theism used by classical apologists is the Kalam cosmological argument (which essentially states that everything observable has a cause, there cannot be an infinite chain of causes thus there must have been an uncaused cause and that the uncaused cause must be God).  This argument however was not formulated by Christians, but by Islamic philosophers, so clearly classical apologetics leaves the door wide open for deviant theism which does not save but condemns.  Moreover if the God of the Bible is not presupposed there is no justification for holding to the universality of the laws of causation.  Apart for His created order there should be no expectation of any universal truths.

Craig’s approach also reveals a faulty and dangerous prosuppositional basis for his method; he writes “A good deductive argument will be one…whose premises are both true and more plausible than its contradictories.”  And after describing his preferred argument concludes “that to deny this proposition is therefore for a normal adult irrational.”  The revealed presupposition is that man’s reason determines what is true, however such an approach fails to take into account the noetic effects of sin and the fall and ignores clear teaching of scripture such as Jeremiah 17:9 which states “the heart (the seat of reason, not merely emotion in biblical thinking) is deceitful above all things.”  Although most classical apologists would deny it, their approach functionally elevates human reason far too high, to a magisterial level.

And flowing out of this elevation of human reason is a dangerous tendency to accommodate scripture to the findings of science.  The great problem with doing this is that while scripture is infallible science is fallible, and while scripture is unchanging scientific theories are constantly being overthrown.  Science has time and again proven itself to be unreliable while Scripture is unchanging and always reliable. 

A practical outworking of this tendency is that many notable classical apologists such as Craig and Norman Geisler advocate an “old earth” theory of the age of the earth.  This is a clear example of the elevation of the reasoning of man above the revealed truth of Scripture and must be condemned. (It must be noted that some classic apologists, such as R.C. Sproul hold to a young earth and a literal six day creation.)

There also seems to be a misunderstanding of the work of the Holy Spirit on the part of some classical apologists.  They readily recognize the value of the internal testimony of the Spirit to believers and root their “knowing” of the truth of Christianity in His testimony, however when it comes to “showing” the truth of Christianity they dismiss the power of the work of the Spirit though the inspiration of the Bible.  Leading classical apologist William Lane Craig takes misunderstanding the role of the Spirit a step further, stating that the Holy Spirit will convict the unbeliever of the weight of the evidence for Christianity.  There is simply no biblical warrant for this assertion however.  The role of the Spirit in the unbelieving world is to convict of sin and the coming judgment (John 16:8) not to help unbelievers weigh evidential arguments and reach conclusions based on their own reasoning.  While Craig’s position may not be universally held, it is illustrative of the kinds of errors that can arise when arguments are not rooted firmly in scripture.

And aside from a too high view of man’s reason classical apologetics has too low a view of scripture.  By conceding “neutral” ground to the unbeliever and recognizing a need to argue for the existence of a God and then the Christian God, it not only operates according to the presuppositions of the unbeliever, but also disregards the clear teaching of Scripture that all men have a knowledge of God (Romans 1:18-21).

For these reasons I believe that classical apologetics should be avoided and that a presuppositional approach is best.  We must always be cognizant that the Word of God is not only infallible and inerrant, but also living and active.  When giving an answer for the hope that is in you the revealed truth of scripture is all sufficient, and there is no need to argue for the probability of a God before sharing the truth of Christ.

Apologetics Q&A pt 3: Presuppositional Apologetics

What is presuppositional apologetics and how does it compare to other apologetic approaches?

            The goal of presuppositional apologetics, like all other apologetic methods is to provide a rational basis for Christian faith.  It does so by defending Christianity against the counter claims of non-religious world views such as atheism or secular humanism and against the claims of other religions.  It also is used to attack (intellectually, we must always be winsome in an apologetic encounter) the claims of other world views and to show not only that Christian faith is reasonable, but that it is sure and that all other world views and religions are absolutely false (it is much more suited to this latter task than other apologetic methods).

            Presuppositional apologetics takes its name from the recognition that all arguments (apologetic or otherwise) are rooted in presuppositions, or things that are already believed.  Presuppositional apologetics recognizes that God’s inspired Word is the only reliable and trustworthy standard of truth, and this is the presupposition that gives this school of thought its name.  

For the presuppositional apologist all of his arguments will be firmly rooted in Scriptural truth, and he will not grant “neutral” ground to his partner in the apologetic encounter, because there really is no such thing for as neutral intellectual territory.  The presupppositionalist recognizes that to grant “neutral ground” and then argue for the existence of God is to argue based on his partner in the apologetic encounter’s false  presupposition, namely that human (specifically his/her own) reason is the arbiter of what is true and false.  Rather the presuppositional apologist roots his/her arguments in the only sure source of truth, the revealed Word of God.

Another key distinctive of presuppositional apologetics is that it argues for the certainty of the Christian world view, and for the impossibility of all other world views and religious systems.  Other apologetic methods seek to show that Christianity is reasonable and probable (they would say so probable that other views are unreasonable), but there is a serious flaw in this methodology.  Even if it is shown that Christianity is reasonable and highly probable that leaves room for other world views to be reasonable and true (however improbable) and for Christianity to be unreasonable and untrue. 

 

The arguments that the presuppositional apologist makes are, in simple terms, one step arguments.  Presuppositional apologetics argues for the certainty of the existence of the God of the Bible, the Christian God.  In contrast classic apologetics seeks to show that the existence of a god is highly probable and that of all of the theistic views Christianity is the most likely.  Other schools of apologetics such as evidentialism and the cumulative case theory approach would claim that they too use a one step approach, but functionally their arguments, although not as strictly ordered as the classic approach, do divide into arguments primarily for the existence for a god and arguments for the Christian God.

Not only is presuppositionalism unique in its single step approach, but the nature of the arguments that it offers is also unique.  While virtually all other approaches to apologetics focus on evidential arguments of one form or another, presuppositional apologetics focuses on transcendental arguments.  A transcendental argument is not made up of a chain of evidence, but rather makes a holistic case that all meaning and thought presupposes, or relies on the God of the bible, by showing the that unbelievers are unable to think, argue, acquire knowledge or even live apart from the God of the Bible.  A transcendental argument may take several different forms, it may be to show that only the God of the bible can account for the laws of logic, and make debate possible, that only the God of the bible can explain the innate sense of right and wrong every person has, or the natural appreciation of beauty that is native to all people, but at its base, a transcendental argument shows that only the Christian worldview provides a livable framework for human existence.  (This does not mean that there is no role for the use of evidence in presuppositional apologetics, this is a common misconception.) This in many ways is the key distinctive of the presuppositional approach.

            I believe that presuppositional apologetics is not only the most effective approach to the apologetic task, but also the most God honoring.  I believe this for a number of reasons.

            First, although the other approaches are not called presuppositional, they are all governed by presuppositional thinking.  By granting “neutral” ground to the unbeliever and then arguing for the existence of God or of the God of the bible, they have effectively allowed the presuppositions of the unbeliever to lay the foundation of the apologetic encounter.  And the presupposition that they will stipulate (often without realizing it) is invariably man centered and usually boils down to some form of the enlightenment belief that that their own reasoning is the sole arbiter of truth.  This is what is called the magisterial use of reasoning and is an affront to God.  One of the things we can know with certainty is that the unbeliever is a fool, since the fool in his heart says there is no God (Psalm 14:1/53:1), so why should we allow an unbeliever to set the terms of the apologetic encounter. 

            And what is worse, to approach the unbeliever as if he has no knowledge of God and needs convinced, is to deny the clear teaching of scripture on the matter.  Roman’s 1 clearly teaches that unbelievers have a knowledge of God (although not enough knowledge to save), and that they willfully suppress this truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18-19).  Creation communicates to them (some of) the attributes and existence of God.  To approach apologetics as if the unbeliever has no knowledge of God is to functionally deny the inerrancy and authority of scripture.

A second key consideration for me is that presuppositionalism is the only approach to apologetics that rests squarely on sure truth.  Only the revealed word of God is 100% trustworthy and sure.  The noetic effects of the Fall (the total corruption of our thought process) render both our reasoning ability and our ability to interpret evidence untrustworthy.  And because presuppositional apologetics rests solely on the Word of God as its foundation, it can do what other apologetic methods cannot, show that the Christian world view is correct and all other world views are false with certainty.  Certainty is a precise term which in this case doesn’t just mean overwhelmingly likely, but that the contrary is impossible, and it is simply not good enough to show that Christianity is very likely, and pretty reasonable, it must be shown to be the only way to explain creation and human experience.

Another key strength of presuppositional apologetics is how effective it is not just at proving the Christian world view, but by proving contrary world views are demonstrably false.  Other apologetic approaches show the reasonableness of Christianity, but rarely show the folly of other world views.  By employing transcendental arguments, presuppositional apologetics is able to show that all other world views are unable to account for creation and the human condition and thus fail the “test of livability”.  This is particularly important because the apologist’s ultimate goal is not merely to win debates, but to win souls.  The ultimate goal in any apologetic encounter is to bring the unbeliever to saving faith (although it very rarely happens) and approaches that do not show the un-livability of non-Christian world views are ill suited for that task.

            Not only do I believe that presuppositional apologetics is the best apologetic approach, I believe that the two most commonly leveled criticisms of it are baseless and without merit.

The first of these is that presuppositional arguments are invalid because they are circular.  People who make this criticism tend to characterize the arguments of presuppositional apologetics as “since God thus God”, but this is so simplistic that it borders on being slanderous.  Perhaps the biggest problem with this claim is that all apologetic approaches are dependent on the apologists’ controlling presuppositions.  Just as the presuppositionalist presupposes that the Bible is the arbiter of truth, the evidentialist bases his arguments on the belief that evidence (empiricism) determines truth and the apologist who appeals to reason presupposes that human reason is the standard of truth.  The only difference is that the presuppositionalist recognizes and discloses his controlling beliefs.  Thus if the arguments of presuppositional apologetics are circular, the arguments of all approaches are also circular.  Moreover, the reasoning of a presuppositional apologist is not circular, it is linear in a way that the other approaches are not.  For the presuppositionalist God’s reasoning (found in scripture) is the basis for faith, which is the basis for human reasoning, and out of this reasoning flows presuppositional arguments for the Christian world view.  Most importantly, surrendering Christian presuppositions (based solely on the Bible), to argue for the truth of Christianity is to surrender the very thing that is being argued for, the Lordship of Christ (and the authority of Scripture).

The second common criticism of presuppositional apologetics is that because it assumes the Bible and a Christian world view and does not start from a “neutral” position, there is not any common ground on which to engage the unbeliever.  This is patently false.  There are two key points of commonality between unbelievers and believers.  The first is their exposure to creation, Psalm 19 states that “the heavens declare the Glory of God and the expanse displays the work of His hands” while Romans 1 makes clear that because what can be known about God is displayed through nature and that unbeliever suppress this knowledge in unrighteousness.  Everyone, even the most hard-bitten atheist knows the God of the Bible exists, and this allows for interaction on common ground.  As does the fact that bothbeliever and unbeliever alike are made in the image of God .  The image of God is the basis for human uniqueness and worth and provides ample common ground from which to launch an apologetic encounter.

While there are apologists of other methods who I respect and whom I love as brothers in Christ, and I want to stress that apologetic approach is certainly not an issue to divide over, non-presuppositional approaches are not merely second best, they are wrong headed.  Only an apologetic grounded in the sure truth of the scripture is up to the task of proving with certainty that only the God of the bible can account for creation and human existence.

 

Five Reasons to Be Encouraged by Last Week's Supreme Court Decisions

As I am sure you know by now, last week the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of gay marriage in two landmark cases, The United States vs. Windsor, which struck down key provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Hollingsworth vs. Perry which allowed the lower court’s decision blocking a voter approved amendment to the California State Constitution (Prop 8) defining marriage as being between one man and one woman to stand and the reaction from the “evangelical” media has been swift and loud and strong, typically with a tone of anger, disbelief, or surprise.

I have to say, I think much of the reaction, although sincere and even flowing out of good motives, has been wrong headed.  The anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God  and believer ought not engage in the practice of judging unbeliever for their sin so bible believing Christians should know better than to be angry at either the Supreme Court justices or those who are enslaved to this immoral lifestyle.  And as far as surprise and disbelief, I fail to see how anyone paying attention at all was caught off guard by these decisions, after all President Obama ran in 2008 on a platform calling for the repeal of DOMA and the California Attorney General refused to defend Prop 8 in court, and all of society has been tracking in this direction for quite a long time.  Only the blindly optimistic could have failed to see this coming.  

That said, I have a different take on the events at the Supreme Court, I find them encouraging.  Not that I in anyway believe that homosexual behavior is not a dire sin (just like heterosexual immorality, and greed, and looking on members of the opposite sex with lust, and hating another in your heart etc.), I do or that I in any way think that gay marriage is good for society, I don’t.  I am encouraged because I find my sufficiency and solace in Christ alone and my contentment in God and His provision.  So allow me to present five reasons I am encouraged by this past week’s events at The Court.

1. God is Sovereign

Nothing that happened in the Supreme Court happened outside of the sovereign will of God.  He wasn’t taken by surprise, His forces were not out argued before the bar and He is not reeling in heaven wondering what to do now.  As the prophet Isaiah wrote God has declared the end from the beginning and all of His purposes will be accomplished.   Although things may feel hopeless and out of control to us, everything is unfolding exactly as God has planned from before the foundation of the world.  If you want to gain a better understanding of how God views the machinations of men who seek to oppose Him and thwart His will read Psalm 2.  God is not worried about His plans being derailed, and neither should His people.

2. Maybe this will mark the end of the evangelical churches’ obsession with presidential politics.

For decades there has been a call from many pulpits, some more bully than others, that Christians must be supporters of Republican candidates, especially for the presidency.  The argument was essentially that if the right presidents are elected then the right judges will be appointed and then court cases will be decided in favor of biblical ethics.  That simply has not happened.  Roe v Wade has not been struck down, and there is scant indication that it ever will, pornography has been ruled free speech many times; at every turn the biblical worldview seems to loose in court and now the Supreme Court has upheld gay marriage. 

Last week’s decisions were handed down by a court comprised of a majority of Republican appointees.  Maybe this will be the wake up call needed to refocus the church on the proclamation of the Gospel instead of partisan politics.  Now I am not saying that believers should be apolitical or silent, they shouldn’t, but I am saying that if Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world or else His followers would have been fighting His arrest and if He was utterly unconcerned with temporal politics (sorry liberation theologians and Christian libertarians He counted both a former Zealot and a Roman tax collector among His apostles – hardly what a political  revolutionary, tax resistor or otherwise politically minded messiah would have done) maybe the church should focus less on politics and more on things of eternal consequence, and maybe now it will.  

[And maybe we can reclaim the title evangelical which is seen by so many as a synonym for Republican.]

3.  Marriage is a God ordained institution and nothing can change that.

Quite frankly it doesn’t really matter what any court or government says, marriage is a God ordained institution between one man and one woman and nothing can change that, not a court ruling, not a referendum not even the sinful heart of man which led to the polygamy recorded in the Old Testament.

Perhaps now the “evangelical” church will stop worrying about what the world says about marriage and start worrying about what the bible teaches about marriage.  Far more concerning to me than gay marriage is the “church’s” acceptance of at will divorce even in the pastorate. [I actually know of a large church where the “pastor’s” announcement of his intention to divorce his wife was met with a standing ovation!]  Perhaps this will be the wake up call needed so that the church will begin to clean its own house, and uphold the biblical standards of marriage.

4. This could be the end of the “Culture War.”

One of the most disheartening things to me about the American “evangelical” church is it’s zeal for the so-called culture war.  Its not that we shouldn’t stand up against and fight against evil, but we ought to realize who our enemy truly is.  Homosexuals are not the enemy of the church, neither are abortion providers or pornographers, they are sinners hopelessly lost and enslaved to sin and dead in their trespasses who need the Gospel, and to repent and believe in Jesus.  Just like every believer was until God being rich in mercy in love made them alive in Christ, not of their own merit, but solely of grace so that no man may boast.

Too many in the church have been so immersed in this fight that when they look at gay marriage advocates they see their enemies instead of the mission field.  Maybe this decision will allow some “culture warriors” to admit they lost the political struggle once and for all and realize that the only hope to change society is through the individual changing of hearts through the Gospel.  The church needs to focus on spiritual warfare not cultural warfare, and maybe these decisions and their implications for “culture warriors” will open new doors for evangelism. 

5. Scripture clearly teaches that things will get worse before the return of Christ, and they clearly are.

Now I am not saying that last week’s court decisions are harbingers of Christ’s immediate return, after all none except the father knows the hour but it is a clear indication that societies around the globe are not getting better and more enlightened but are sliding deeper into sin.  Just read 2 Timothy 3:1-9  and see if you don’t think things are on track.

Bible believing and bible literate Christians should have no expectation other than a steady decline of civilization until Jesus returns and should expect no godly government until Jesus is ruling from the throne of David.  These court cases do not invite God’s judgment on the U.S.A. they are God’s judgment.  As things continue to get worse we can be assured that everything is unfolding according to God’s plan and that Jesus will return and put all things right.

While I am certainly not happy about the direction that our country is going (or has gone, I think that Christian morality was never really woven into the fabric of American society; have you ever notices all of the brothels in old westerns or heard someone call Benjamin Franklin America’s first pornographer?), I don’t think as believers there is anything discouraging or disheartening about it.  Rather we should be encouraged knowing that God is sovereign and that what we are witnessing, though it may be the decline of America, is the unfolding of His plan.  Our mission as believers is not to hold the moral line for society, but to make disciples and we are still free to spread the good news of Jesus Christ.  Let’s focus on that.