In his rudimentary approach to apologetics, William Lane
Craig proposes that human reason relates to the truthfulness of the Christian
worldview in two fundamental ways. Craig says, “The methodological approach
which I shall defend in this essay is that reason in the form of rational
arguments and evidence plays an essential role in our showing Christianity to
be true, whereas reason in this form plays a contingent role in our personally
knowing Christianity to be true.”
I do not write this post for the sake of theological or
philosophical dispute or disagreement. I write it because I firmly believe, as
do many others, that classical apologetics has hi-jacked Christian evangelism.
When the men at Triablogue admit that the gospel is not enough, that the
Bible is simply not a sufficient tool in and of itself to effectively proclaim
and defend the Christian worldview, then something is dreadfully wrong. When
Paul Manata can accuse me of anti-intellectualism because I contend that we
should spend more time training believers how to deliver a succinct
presentation of the gospel rather than spending ludicrous amounts of time on
arguments from philosophy and human reason, then you know that even in our most
conservative circles, the sparks of compromise are finding a home. It can’t be
long until the brush fires of a skewed gospel are upon us. Indeed, the breeze
is pushing the flames in our direction with the passing of each twilight.
Contrary to the teachings of classical apologetics (and some
others), one does not have to attain a graduate level understanding of
philosophy in order to proclaim, and effectively answer questions concerning
the hope of the gospel that is within them, in a way that honors and glorifies
God. It is not necessary to defeat every complex and sophisticated argument that
ungodly skeptics construct in their attempt to suppress the knowledge of God that
is within them as they futilely distort and intentionally misinterpret the
evidence that is all around them. To the contrary, rather than spending time
moving from one absurd complex philosophical question to the next, Christians
must focus on the basic presupposition upon which the more complex strain of
the argument depends. If you have ever observed the demolition of a large
building, then you know that explosives are place, not at the top of the build,
but at its foundation. That is, it is the foundation of the building that has
to come down in order to take the whole building down. The same is true in
discussions about truth, reality, and theology. It is the substance of
the objection that we must focus on. We take the complex, identify the simple
foundation upon which is it build and
explode it with God’s truth. Our method for answering inquiries concerning the
hope that is in us must be aimed, first and foremost, to honor and
glorify God. That is the goal. Classical apologetics, I will show, has a
considerably different goal in mind. Christian evangelism seeks to proclaim
truth in hopes of winning a soul. Christian apologists all too often seeks to
parade intellectual acumen in speaking truth in hopes of winning a debate. Far
too many Christian apologists are far too impressed with the human intellect
for their own spiritual health.
Natural Theology and Neutrality
Clifford McManis, in his book, “Biblical Apologetics,”
defines natural theology, “also called philosophical theology, speculative
theology or natural religion, is the practice philosophically reflecting on the
existence and nature of God independent of divine revelation or Scripture;
thoughts about God developed through discursive reasoning and ratiocination
without the contribution of the Bible.” [1]
According to some philosophers and
theologians the existence of a supreme and supernatural being can be reasonably
inferred from the data of observation and experience.[2]
Natural theology
deals with man’s knowledge of God apart from divine revelation in Scripture. In
essence, it deals with man’s knowledge of God as revealed in general, in the
natural order. As such, natural theology is an epistemological issue. What is
the nature of man’s knowledge of God as it comes through natural revelation? “A
biblical theory of knowledge proclaims the absolute requirement of God’s
revealed truth as the tacit foundation of understanding and knowledge.”[3]
Fundamental to a
distinctly Christian epistemology is the view that knowledge has an entirely
revelational nature. Since that is the case, we must examine Romans one in
light of the fundamental premise of natural theology. Does creation and
conscience provide irresistible evidence sufficient for reasonably concluding
that God probably exists? On the other hand, does God deliver actual knowledge
of his existence in creation and conscience? What does Paul say about this in
Romans one? How one understands Paul in this text is critical to the formation
of their view of natural theology and the possibility of neutrality in human
reasoning. Moreover, we must do our best to purge ourselves of philosophical
and undue theological biases as we approach this question. In other words, our
perspective should be informed by a sound exegetical inquiry resting on sound
hermeneutical principles. Is Paul saying that men possess knowledge or is he
saying that they should possess knowledge of God vis-à-vis natural
revelation?
Natural theology
demands epistemological neutrality. It demands neutrality of the human
intellect. In fact, it demands that the human intellect, in terms of capacity,
remain unaffected by sin. Natural theology begins with the concept of brute
facts, couples that concept with the view that human reason is unaffected by
sin and concludes that we can and should do our best to use these facts,
so-called, to appeal to the unbeliever’s reasoning capacity to convince them
that God probably exists. “To compromise with unbelieving standards or methods
in the world of thought is to do grave disservice to the needs of those with
whom we speak: to be willing to assume a position of neutrality would be
conducive to anything but spiritual health in our hearers.”[4]
What does Scripture reveal?
What does Paul say in Romans chapter one and what are the
consequences of his remarks for Christian evangelism and apologetics? To answer
that question, we must turn to the exegetical process. Paul says in Rom. 1:18
that God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness of men
who suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness. Notice the words “all” and
the phrase “suppress the truth.” That the language is universal is clear from
both the immediate context of chapter one, not to mention the book of Romans in
its entirety. Romans 2:1 points up to a universal condition of all men using
the conjunction dia which is a logical inference from what just followed
and is translated “therefore.”
Verse 19 tells us that “what is know about God” is clear or
evident in them. Some commentators use among as opposed to in, but when the
antecedent is referring to the abstract, it is better to translate the
preposition as “in.” I will come back to this later. Paul says God has also
made it evident to them. The knowledge that God is there is both evident
in them and has been made evident to them.
Paul goes on to say that from the creation of the world,
from the very beginning, God’s invisible attributes have been clearly seen by
them and that they understand that God exists through the things that have been
made. Up to the point, Paul has not told us that we have to teach them this.
Paul is describing the state of every human that has lived from the beginning.
Paul says this serves as the basis of culpability, so that they are without
excuse. Yet, it is those very excuses that apologetics seems so interested in legitimizing
and then defeating from an intellectual standpoint. One has to wonder if we
truly are obeying 1 Pet. 3:15 or if we are feeding an intellect that desires to
elevate itself rather than walk in the humility that God demands. One thing is
certain: when we begin to trust more in our ability to navigate complex
philosophical arguments and say things like “the Bible is not enough” or “the
gospel is not enough,” we are drifting from simple and clear truths revealed in
Scripture. I can think of only one reason why we exchange the simple for the
complex: pride!
Paul moves on to say that even though they knew God, they did
not honor Him as God. Instead, they became futile in their speculations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. This is the result of sin. This is the impact
of sin on the human intellect and heart. This is the effect of sin on the human
person. The mind and heart stands for the whole person. Man is totally
depraved. There is no part of the human person that is not affected by sin.
Because of the consequence of sin, man suppresses the truth
and knowledge of God that he possesses from the very beginning. This is due to
the curse that God Himself has inflicted on man, to include the human
intellect. Man has become a race of fools, exchanging the image of God for a
lie, worshipping and serving creatures, created things, idols of the
imagination, and images of God in the mind that are far from the image of the
God revealed in Scripture. Man does this willingly, but because of sin, he does
it necessarily and unavoidably. So long as man is incarcerated in sin, his
intellect is incarcerated with him. He is not bound in every other way, but
free in his reasoning capacities. Sin has invaded the intellect, the will, and
the emotions. In one way or another, to one degree or another, sinful men
distort and therefore attempt to destroy the truth of the reality of God and
the truth of God’s reality.
Paul goes on to inform us that because of men’s utter
contempt of the truth of God in reality that God has given men over to degraded
fleshly lusts. The sexual promiscuity and perversion we witness in the human
race is a display of God’s wrath. Here we are, harkening back to v. 18.
Homosexual behavior is one of those “degrading lusts” that is a sure sign of
God’s judgment. Paul tells us “for this reason” dia touto, God turned
men over to homosexual passions and lusts to engage in behavior that is not
fitting or right, in other words, immoral. Paul uses the words adokimon noun,
translated depraved mind. In other words, the minds of unregenerate men are
worthless in terms of spiritual truth and biblical morality.
Natural theology requires certain metaphysical conditions in
order to support it’s thesis that natural proofs can be used to reason with men
to accept the truth about God. It requires brute facts. It requires the human
intellect to be unaffected by sin. It requires objective neutrality when it
comes to the idea and concept of the God who is there. Natural theology assumes
that there are men who truly do not know if God exists or who truly do believe
that God does not exist. Contrary to these things, Romans one tells us clearly
that men’s reasoning is hopelessly affected by the sinful condition in which he
finds himself. Not only this, Romans one nowhere supports the idea that brute
facts exist and that with a little help we can discover them. If anything,
Romans one tells us that all men, apart from God, bring an interpretive
paradigm to reality that is contrary to God’s interpretation of reality.
Moreover, Paul’s description of the human mind as adokimon noun
indicates that the human intellect is contaminated with sin as a result of the
curse of God. Finally, Paul tells us that despite his condition, man possesses
adequate knowledge of God to be morally culpable for his behavior. This is
contrary to the entire enterprise of many schools on Christian apologetics.
Summary
“And as a third consequence of the fall, Christian ethics
and theology cannot be built on the basis (even partially) of nature. There can
be no natural theology, natural law or natural morality that corresponds to the
ethics and theology of grace and revelation. This is true for ‘epistemological’
reasons (we cannot rely on natural reason or conscience to discern the good) as
much as for reasons of the will (we cannot rely on natural inclination or natural
powers to perform the good). Morality of the world is inextricably of the order
of necessity and the order of the fall.”[5]
So let’s pretend that men like William Lane Craig and Paul
Manata are correct in their interpretation of Romans one. Let’s say that Paul
is saying that men do not possess the knowledge of God, but rather that given
the evidence all around them, they should. If that is so, what else is Paul
saying in that text? It is my contention that at the simplest of levels, Paul
is saying that what all men do have is enough! In other words, we have no
obligation to give the unregenerate any more than what they have already been
given by God in creation and conscience. If you hold to a presuppositional
approach, you think that the thing they have is actual knowledge of God
that they intentionally twist and distort. If you are a classical apologist,
you think “the thing” is the evidence in creation. That is fine as far
as it goes. However, neither group should miss the consequence of possessing
this “thing” that Paul says all men have. That is, whether you are
reformed and think it is knowledge or if you are not reformed and think it is
evidence, both sides have to admit that the message, at the end of the day, is
that “the thing” (be it knowledge or evidence) is enough and God is not
obligated to give them one ounce more than He already has.
I am not arguing that we should not be passionately involved
in understanding men’s objections to God. I think we should. I think some of
must because that is our function in the body. I think it is like mathematics.
We should know them, albeit, a little more passionately for some of course.
However, when it comes to apologetic methods, the significance that theology
plays is immeasurable. If our theology is biblical, we understand there are no
brute facts. We know that the human intellect is woefully inadequate to reason
its way truly to the God who is there. As Greg Bahnsen says, man knows and he
doesn’t know. Theologically speaking, we know that man is hostile to God,
existing as a sworn enemy of God. He takes the truth God has given to him in
creation and in his conscience and distorts it, perverts it, corrupts it, and
hence tries to destroy it. If your theology is biblical, you know that no
amount of intellectual prowess will bring men to God. Your focus is not on your
ability to win a debate, but rather on issuing the truth of God accurately so that
you may win a soul!
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ
died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though
perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates
His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much
more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the
wrath of God through Him. For if
while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son,
much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Romans
5:6-10)
What do you think? Is the Word of God enough to give a
reasonable answer for the hope that lies in you? Is it enough to save souls
from the captivity of sin and the impending doom of eternal judgment? How will
we answer this question? However we answer it, this will shape our entire
approach to the subject of Christian apologetics right down to how and on what
we spend our time, which by the way, Jesus commanded us to redeem.
Hi Ed! I really like your post here. I think you hit the nail on the head. I also read the exchange at Triablogue. It is an ugly shame the way you were treated. It is always a bad state of affairs that many name the name of Christ as Lord and Savior but act like school boy bullies. It does show that you got the better of them. You showed Christ well in the face of such arrogance. I say arrogance because only one such as that would be blind to think one can reason themselves up to God. They seemed not to grasp the fact that it takes divine intervention from almighty God to raise the spiritually dead, and the gospel, not philosophy is the means God uses. Just wanted to drop a note saying one person understood you. Blessing my fellow North Carolinian!
ReplyDeleteHi Ed! I really like your post here. I think you hit the nail on the head. I also read the exchange at Triablogue. It is an ugly shame the way you were treated. It is always a bad state of affairs that many name the name of Christ as Lord and Savior but act like school boy bullies. It does show that you got the better of them. You showed Christ well in the face of such arrogance. I say arrogance because only one such as that would be blind to think one can reason themselves up to God. They seemed not to grasp the fact that it takes divine intervention from almighty God to raise the spiritually dead, and the gospel, not philosophy is the means God uses. Just wanted to drop a note saying one person understood you. Blessing my fellow North Carolinian!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind remarks. It is very sad when Christians cannot passionately reach for the truth in discussions like this without resorting to such displays. The world sees this and thinks we are no different at all.
ReplyDelete