Classical Apologetics and The Nature of Scripture

In light of the recent dust-up concerning Andy Stanley’s sermon regarding the relationship of Christianity and the Bible, and the subsequent defense of Stanley’s sermon by men from the classical apologetics bastion, Southern Evangelical Seminary, men like Norm Geisler and Frank Turek, it seems to me that a crucial question has emerged: Can classical apologetics provide a lucid defense of the historic orthodox view of Scripture? In other words, can the current state of classical apologetics exist in harmony with, and be married to, the Christian Scriptures as they have been viewed by Christianity over the long history of the church? It seems to me that Frank Turek’s revised definition of Sola Scriptura provides an excellent starting point from which to begin our investigation.

Two things are required to answer this question: first, a sound understanding of the Bible’s claims about itself and how the church has understood those claims over the course of her history; second, a firm grasp of the core tenants of the classical method of apologetics. Can method x defend the type of claim y that Christian Scripture makes about itself?

Classical apologetics does not begin its defense of Christianity with the Bible. It begins its defense of Christianity with human reason, arguments, and evidence. It assumes that there is a set of neutral criteria agreed upon by both the unbeliever and the believer and that all that the Christian has to do is to present, in just the right way, the Christian claims in accord with this supposedly neutral criteria, and in so-doing, he will remove the unbeliever’s obstacles that supposedly are keeping him from coming to faith in Christ. What this means is that the unbeliever’s objection to Christian belief must be limited to his cognitive faculties. The classical method assumes that the primary obstacle to Christian belief is intellectual. If we can clear that objection, we can persuade the unbeliever to embrace Christianity and place their faith in Christ, or so it goes. Moreover, since Christian belief is based on the most rational arguments and clear evidence, a reasonable person will naturally decide to embrace Christianity if, and this is important, if the messenger presents Christianity in a way that accords with the neutral criteria of logic and evidence mentioned earlier. Since the unbeliever’s objection to Christ is intellectual in nature, the most effective way to clear the path to Christ from all these obstacles is to appeal to human reason, or so says the classical method. And the best way to appeal to human reason and to change minds, is to employ those tactics and strategies that have the highest probability for persuading the intellect, and hence, changing the unbeliever’s mind. You see, we can restore the intellectual respectability of Christianity and increase the Kingdom of God both at the same time! Or so goes the classical method.

Back to the question: can this method of apologetics put up a rational defense of the claims of Scripture about itself without compromising its own tenants or without sacrificing the historic orthodox view of Scripture on the altar of pagan philosophy and autonomous human reason?

Classical apologetics holds that every truth-claim ought to be accompanied with evidence, with proof for its claim. And that proof must satisfy the criteria of sound reason as agree upon by the Christian and the non-Christian alike. If we cannot support our claims by subjecting them to the criticisms and judgments of non-Christian criteria, then we have a gospel that is unconvincing because it lacks intellectual integrity and plausibility, or so the argument goes. The classical method allows for the and even depends on the condition of neutrality in human reason and the existence of brute fact for its success.

When I took Dr. Geisler’s “Introduction to Apologetic’s some 20 years ago, it was clear that reason had prominence of place. In fact, one of the points that Dr. Geisler made for why we should do apologetics in the first place was that “reason demands it.” “A fundamental principle of reason is that we should have sufficient grounds for what we believe.” Dr. Geisler went on to quote, not Paul, not Peter, but Socrates: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Indeed, human reason occupies a very high place in the school of classical apologetics. But the question for the classical apologist is can he deliver the kind of evidence required to warrant the Christian belief that the Bible is very Word of God, perfectly inspired in its original form? The real question for the classical apologist is can he deliver on his promise to defend the Christian worldview using his method without presupposing the truthfulness of the very worldview he wants to prove comports with the state of affairs as they have obtained.

The classical approach begins with the claim that God exists and it proceeds to offer us the evidence for this claim by way of the traditional arguments. But none of these arguments deliver the Christian God. They only deliver the possibility that some sort of very powerful, very intelligent being exists. They all fail to prove that the God of Scripture exists.

The classical approach then moves to the claim that if this very powerful, very intelligent being exists, then miracles are possible. And if miracles are possible then a miracle can be used by God to confirm a message from God. The problem with this argument is that Christianity, in modern times, is not accompanied by miracles. The best we can do is point to testimonies that are nearly 2,000 years old of people who claim to have witnessed a number of miracles. And that is not quite the same now is it.

Once the classical approach has established that the existence of some god is possible, or probable, and then from this conclude that miracles are possible, and from this, conclude that miracles can be used to confirm a message from God. From this point the claim is made that the NT is historically reliable. I suppose this means that the NT then is God’s message because God has given us miracles to confirm that it is true. The problem with this view is that it presupposes what it wants to prove: The Bible. You cannot use the miracles of the Bible to claim the Bible is confirmed to be God’s word without arguing in a circle. The very idea of the possibility of miracles presupposes the truthfulness of Christian belief. Now, as a presuppositionalist, I don’t mind the circle quite so much, but the classical method has a serious problem with it. You see, we do not see the miracles that Geisler talks about. We only read eyewitness accounts, or as the skeptic would say, claims. A mere claim that a miracle happened is not grounds to accept it. As Geisler has already said, we need evidence. What evidence do we have? From whence will it come? It cannot come from the very Scripture we are trying to conclude is the word of God. That is assuming what we are trying to prove or demonstrate. The evidence, in order to remain consistent with the classical approach must come from someplace else.

In order to show that the NT is historically reliable, Dr. Geisler points to the fact that we have a LOT of copies of the NT, and we have a lot of OLD copies of the NT. In fact, we have more of these old copies of the NT than any other document from antiquity. The NT records that Jesus claimed to be God in many ways. But does it follow that just because it is historically accurate to say that Jesus claimed to be God that it actually was God? The classical apologist will reply that Jesus worked a lot of miracles and claimed to be God. Did he really work those miracles? Just because the NT has proven to be reliable in those areas where it can be fact-checked against the evidence, that does not mean that it is reliable in every other area. After all, Andy Stanley is calling into question the historicity of creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood. The whole point is that Christianity can survive without a fully reliable Bible. Don’t let the 6 days of creation scare you away! That is the point. So, these miracles may not have happened just like Adam and Eve and the flood and the talking snake and the talking donkey may not have actually happened.

The next claim is that Jesus predicted and accomplished his own resurrection. Therefore, Jesus is God. Whatever Jesus, who is God, teaches, is true. Jesus taught that the Bible is the word of God. Therefore, the Bible is the Word of God. The problem with this approach is that none of these things come directly from Jesus. The miracles don’t come directly from Jesus nor do we witness these sorts of things in our day. And it is faith in our day that we are talking about. The claims that Dr. Geisler writes about are all claims made by someone else about Jesus. These men claim to have witnessed Jesus raise the dead, heal the sick, and so forth. The whole question is, did Jesus do these things? And more importantly, the question is, can classical apologetics demonstrate with sound arguments and good evidence that these things are in fact true? And can it do so without presupposing the very thing it is attempting to demonstrate? Namely, that the Bible is the Word of God and can be trusted in all that it claims.

What is the nature of the Bible? What do we mean by the phrase sola Scriptura? The 1689 LBCF as well as the WCF say: The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God. Can classical apologetics provide the kind of evidence and argumentation that warrants belief in the Bible while remaining internally consist with its own method? I don’t believe it can. And the reason I don’t believe it can is because belief in the Bible as God speaking, which is what we are talking about, is not the conclusion of logical arguments or historical evidence. Belief in the Bible as God speaking is the result and only the result of the miraculous and gracious gift of faith placed in the regenerated heart by God the Holy Spirit. The nature of the Bible is such that unaided human reason cannot and will not honor the Bible by properly recognizing it for what it is. Belief that the Bible is God speaking is not something that one can limit to the human intellect. Such a belief is whole-life changing and transforming.

The traditional arguments have failed to prove that the Christian God exists. They simply fall short of the mark. And if that is true, we cannot say if miracles are possible or not. In fact, if the conclusion of the traditional arguments is the warrant for belief in the possibility of miracles, then that warrant is low to be sure. And since we have such a low degree of warrant for both the Christian God and from there the belief in the possibility of miracles, the next issue we must face is the question concerning the claims of miracles in the NT. We may say that generally speaking a document is reliable and credible if we can validate its claims by means of other reliable and credible sources. But is this the case with the NT? If it is logically the case that the traditional arguments do not provide a high degree of warrant for belief in the Christian God and I don’t think they do, then it follows that miracles will necessarily come with a low degree of warrant. And if this is true, then surely any document that claims that God exists and that miracles happen may be very reliable in some respects, but quite unreliable in others. Why couldn’t one claim that the Bible is filled with many stories, some of them quite reliable where history is concerned and where corroborating evidence exists, and others of them are the very probably the product of superstitious minds, especially where supernatural claims are concerned.

Christians claim that the Bible is the supernatural Word of God. The Bible is a miraculous project. Can logical arguments and historical evidence defend the claim that the Bible is a supernatural book and remain internally consistent? Yes and no. Heb. 4:12 says that the Word of God is living and active. How can a book be alive and actually active? Well, given the presuppositions of autonomous human reason, it cannot. To say that the Bible is the word of God because Jesus claimed it is the word of God is not evidence that the Bible is the Word of God, at least not if we follow the logic of the classical approach. What it is, is something that a presuppositionalist like myself might say. But if we yield to the classical approach, it is only evidence that Jesus Christ believed that the Bible is the Word of God. And to say that Jesus was the Messiah because he rose from the dead and therefore, whatever he says is true, is a belief that is based on the Word of God. Why do I need to conclude that the Bible is the Word of God when all the evidence I am referencing, for the most part, is contained in the very book I am trying to demonstrate to be the Word of God? But this is, for the classical approach, begging the question. The presuppositionalist would gladly extend an “amen.”

Part of the problem is how the classical approach views what it means to know. The classical approach has embraced some principles from pagan Greek philosophy and some principles from the enlightenment. The demand for a very specific type of evidence has been uncritically accepted by this school and as a result, it has produced an apologetic approach that is on the brink of collapse. These philosophies first infected theology about God, about man, about salvation, and have now worked their way into apologetic method. Knowledge is not defined by ancient Greece nor is it defined by the god-hating, arrogant blasphemers from the enlightenment. It is defined by divine revelation. True human knowledge begins only where the fear of the Lord resides. That is where we must begin our definition, understanding, and case for the possibility, of human knowledge. Elizabeth Meek tells us that restricting knowledge to the sentence lying on a piece of paper makes no sense. This is not the kind of knowledge we are talking about when we talk about how we know God or how Christians know that the Bible is God speaking. I did not come to know my wife by way of logical arguments or syllogisms. I did not come to know her through empirical investigations. And we do not know God or God speaking in this way either. But you have an anointing and you all know, the apostle John tells us. (1 John 2:20) What? We know because we have an anointing from the Holy One. Jesus told the Father that he had manifested the Father’s name to his disciples and as a result, they have come to know everything. (John 17) The disciples only knew once Jesus disclosed the Father to them.

The classical approach ignores the fact that the human intellect is now operating under a divine curse and in desperate need of redemption. 1 Corinthians tells us without ambiguity that the message of the cross, which is exactly what the entire Scripture is about, is foolishness to those who are perishing. I would say that that qualifies as an obstacle. Why didn’t Paul tell us that we should do all we can to remove that obstacle? There is an incredible antithesis between unbelieving criteria for justified belief and believing criteria. The unbeliever’s epistemic authority is rebellious, unaided, fallen human reason. The believers epistemic authority for warranted belief is Scripture alone.

One final point on this was made by James White and I want to share this principle with you because it is indeed an excellent one. If you are going to make an argument for the credibility of the Bible, then that thing to which you appeal in your argument must come with a greater degree of credibility than the Bible if it is going to add anything to the credibility of the Bible. Appealing to the Babylonian Talmud to prove that Christ performed miracles is silly when you have the sort of evidence you have in Scripture. The Talmud has less integrity than Scripture and therefore, it does not add force to your argument. This point seems to be entirely lost on the classical approach.

In the end, it seems to me that classical apologetics cannot defend the doctrine of sola Scriptura precisely for the reason that it depends on the autonomous reason of fallen men to judge of its claims. This fact alone, by definition, means that classical apologetics is impotent when it comes to defending the Christian claim of Scripture alone! That fact alone should be enough for anyone who cares about the doctrine of sola Scriptura to abandon this apologetic method. Gordon Clark wrote, “All attempts to obtain knowledge apart from revelation have failed.” This is because the revelation of God in Scripture is the only means by which man may come to a true knowledge of God and of God’s creation. I need to further evidence than that which I have in Scripture alone!

Bruggencate and Hernandez

Responding to Adam Tucker’s Response to Fred Butler: Apologetic Method

In the interest of transparency, I am a reformed Baptist. John MacArthur is my favorite pastor/preacher on the national stage. I follow and admire Fred Butler’s blog and find his perspective to be spot on most of the time. I studied apologetics under Norman Geisler and then shifted to the materials of Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, Oliphint, and even studied under Mike Butler for a couple of years. Hence, I am of the Van Til stripe for the most part. I love Cliff McManis’ book, “Biblical Apologetics.” I think he is mostly right, even when he is critical of philosophy, a field I enjoy. So, I am not neutral concerning the disagreement between Adam and Fred.

Since this is a subject that is near and dear to my heart, I thought I would offer my own response to Adam’s criticism of Fred’s position because, well, Fred’s position is just about identical to my own. More importantly however, I believe there is tremendous damage being done to the body of Christ by way of Adam’s method of apologetics. I believe the classical method is responsible for producing many false converts within Christian churches. There are a number of people in our churches who are there because the evidence was compelling, not because they were given faith to believe. They followed the formulas, examined the logic, and the evidence and concluded that Christianity is probably true and here they are, holding hands with us claiming to love God while believing that God probably exists, Jesus probably rose from the dead, and the Bible is probably the Word of God. And folks, if it feels like that is a problem, you are right: it is a problem. In fact, it is a deadly serious problem. I will come back to this in my summary.

First, it is interesting that the post begins with a poisoning the well/begging the question fallacy as Fred classifies his brand of presuppositional apologetics (as opposed to my classical apologetics) as “what [he] like[s] to call biblical apologetics.”

I don’t think Cliff McManis poisoned the well when he wrote his book, “Biblical Apologetics.” I don’t believe that Milton Terry poisoned the well when he titled his book, “Biblical Hermeneutics.” And I don’t think Fred poisoned the well when he refers to his method as biblical apologetics. All Fred is looking to do is signify that his method begins with the Bible. For Adam to point this out strikes me as desperate if not potentially a bit disingenuous. Adam misses the mark on this point. Perhaps he can do better on his next point.

Given the kind of being man is, we gain knowledge about reality, at least initially, by sensing, and forming judgements [sic] about, sensible things.

Notice that Adam claims we gain knowledge about reality, at least initially, through the senses. Well, grammatically speaking, the statement is very difficult to follow, and hence, nearly impossible to analyze. The reason is simple: initially, one does not gain knowledge. One only gains knowledge if he possesses knowledge initially. To gain knowledge is to increase existing knowledge. I am not convinced that Adam meant to use the word “gain” in his argument. It places him in the very awkward position of having to explain how one adds more to a thing that they do not possess in the first place. When the first man, Adam, was created, he knew nothing, if our Adam is right. He possessed no knowledge whatsoever (at least if I understand our Adam) until he began investigating the reality around him. And without any knowledge whatsoever, one has to ask how the first man, Adam, began to know anything at all. How did Adam know He was a man? Where did that knowledge come from? Moreover, how did Adam know anything about knowledge? Quite simply, Adam could not attain any knowledge whatsoever from his initial state of no knowledge. Without some knowledge, even the slightest knowledge is impossible. You must know something if you are going to know anything at all. A priori knowledge is absolutely necessary in order for human beings to possess a posteriori knowledge. Now, this all raises the question as to what knowledge is in the first place. But we will come back to that later, if not in this post, perhaps in a follow-up post. Adam’s second point is epistemically implausible. There is simply no way that a posteriori knowledge can exist apart from a priori knowledge. To say that we know, initially by sense experience, ignores the role of the mind in the epistemic process. Adam misses his epistemic target by miles, not inches.

Adam continues to make his case that man’s knowledge of God is intermediate:

In other words, just as the Scriptures attest (cf., John 1:18, 6:46; 1 Tim. 6:16; 1 John 4:12), we do not have direct knowledge of the divine essence. We reason from effect to cause resulting in finite, but true, knowledge of God via things (1 Cor. 13:12).

Do these texts actually say what Adam says they say? Adam says these texts attest that men do not have direct knowledge of the divine essence. How does Adam do on this point? Well, John 1:18 does not even mention the word knowledge. He simply states what has been stated in other places in Scripture; that no one has see God at any time. He goes on to say that Jesus Christ has explained God and I would argue, done so in a more thorough way than previous revelation has done, and that is John’s point. Jesus Christ has explained the Father, being God in the flesh. This is the crescendo of divine revelation. Moreover, the knowledge of God we receive from the Christ event is not the sort of knowledge of God that is in question in this dispute. There is a marked difference between the saving knowledge of God and the knowledge of God all men possess as a result of regeneration. So John 1:18 does not say that man does not have direct knowledge of God. The same comments that apply to John 1:18 apply to John 6:46. Moreover, if we are to take Adam seriously in regard to how he seems to understand 1 Tim. 6:16, we end in skepticism. No one has seen God and this includes all humans, even Christians. And if Adam understands οραω to mean know, then no one knows God. This means the first man Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and a host of others did not actually possess knowledge of God. This view, as you can see, leads to a radical skepticism. 1 John 4:12 says exactly the same thing as the other texts. The problem is that not one of these texts suggests that men cannot have direct knowledge of God. What Adam is doing is presupposing that if men cannot see God, they cannot know Him because all knowledge comes through the senses. And that is exactly what we are disputing. Adam is presupposing what he needs to prove. Adam misses the mark on this point as well. So far, Adam has not been able to sustain a single point in his response to Fred.

Be that as it may, from a strictly grammatical standpoint, Fred’s understanding of this

passage seems amiss. Romans 1:19 says, “Since what can be known about God is evident among them [or within them], because God has shown it to them” (HCSB).

Adam makes the accusation that Fred commits Eisegesis in his interpretation of Romans 1:19. The Greek text reads: φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς· ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν; “is evident in them; for God made it evident to them.” To whom? The language is universal; all men everywhere. What is true about all men everywhere? That which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them. The same people that possess knowledge about God are the same ones that God makes Himself it evident or plain. Adam makes a big deal out the difference between the words for “evident” in this text. Adam’s comment, “Though the words for “evident” in this verse are related, they have slightly different meanings” are very interesting. The words are more than a little related. It is the same Greek word with different forms. One form is an adjective in the nominative case while the other form is an indicative verb in the aorist tense. That is the reason one clause is an action clause while the other is descriptive. It’s the same word, not two related words. Now, it also seems lost on Adam that this verse is a subordinate clause which means it is dependent on the main clause which is found up in v18. Paul begins v19 with the adverbial causal conjunction διότι. The cause for the wrath of God being poured out on these men who suppress the truth in unrighteous is simply this: The knowledge God was something they possessed, for God made sure they possessed it. God made it so plain to them that they are left without excuse. They are guilty of suppressing the truth. They are preventing and restraining the truth of God. They willingly hold down the truth of God. It’s all about context. Adam says that we can infer from effect to cause. And he is correct in one sense. But that only begs the question. The reason we can make such inferences is because Christianity is true. God did create the world and all that is in it. God is the ultimate cause of all that came to be. But that is not the issue. The issue concerns that which Paul is revealing to us in Romans 1 about man’s knowledge of God and, how man has behaved toward that knowledge. While v20 points out that every fact of reality testifies about God, v21 points out something far more direct. διότι γνόντες τὸν θεὸν is abundantly clear; For although they knew God. The NASB, NIV84, ESV, NET, and HCSB all render this Greek construction essentially the same. It cannot be interpreted any other way than that these people knew God! All of them! And they all do exactly the same thing with this knowledge of God: they suppress it! So, as Paul’s argument progresses, he explains that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteous of men who are suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness. He says the cause of this wrath is that these men have the knowledge of God within them and that God has made it plain to them. He goes on then to say that every fact of reality testifies to God’s existence. So we have both an internal and an external witness of God. And finally, Paul says although they knew God, they did not honor him as God. This harkens back to v18 where Paul said these men suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness. The entire context of Romans 1 screams that all men possess innate knowledge of God. They are in possession of the truth of God. The problem is that they refuse to acknowledge these facts. And this is because of sin. Again, v25 says that these men exchanged the truth of God for a lie. That men are in possession of the truth and that men have been given knowledge of God seems to be undeniable if we give Romans 1 a fair hearing, allowing it to speak for itself. Clearly, Adam’s point in this case fails to hit its mark.

Another point that Adam introduces seems to fair no better:

Jesus obviously taught these men, performed miracles as signs for these men, etc. and did not reference some innate knowledge of Himself these men were supposed to have.

Nothing could be father from the truth. “And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 16:17) “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.” (John 6:45) “As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.” (1 Jn. 2:27) “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” (Lu. 10:22) “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.” (Rom 2:14-15) Miracles are not the variable that brings men to a true belief that Christ is who He said He is. Miracles may give cause to accept claims on a superficial level, but not on the level of true belief and certainly not on the level of true knowledge. When belief is based on such superficial ground, it is subject to revision and abandonment, just as we see take place in the New Testament. This lends itself to my false-convert comments at the opening of this post. Have we ignored the fact that Jesus’ disciples all forsook Him and His culture killed him in the end? Additionally, revisions of beliefs are an inherent component of the inductive method of classical apologetics. That method tells us that we can never be sure and that we should always leave room new conclusions based on adjustments to our hypotheses should new evidence come to light. This is a deadly problem for Christian belief. It is antithetical to Christian theism top to bottom.

Furthermore, we see an appeal to creation as it relates to knowing God’s existence and nature in many places throughout Scripture (cf., Ps. 19:1-4; Acts 14:16-17, 17:24-29).

Ps. 19:1-4 is a statement of fact. It is special revelation informing us that the heavens declare the glory of God. And they do! But Ps. 19:1-4 is not a logical syllogism telling us that we should infer that there is a god somewhere because creation proves it. Far from it. Acts 14:16-17 is also not a logical syllogism attempting to show that it is probably true that God exists. Far from it! It is a declaration of God’s common grace on all of humanity. Finally, Acts 17:24-29 is not a philosophical diatribe in which Paul concludes, therefore God exists, or worse, therefore God probably exists. All the wishful thinking in the world will not produce such a conclusion. Paul never attempts, not once, to argue that God (or probably) exists. Everywhere Paul is recorded to preach the message of the gospel, he assumes, or better, presupposes that God exists and that men know that God exists. Acts 17 is no exception. There are no appeals within Scripture to any arguments that attempt to persuade men to believe that God exists. Scripture presupposes God everywhere, and never attempts to convince men that God exists. Men know that God is there. The problem is that unregenerate men convince themselves that the God that is there is somehow, a different sort of god. They suppress the truth from God. It is true that God reveals details about Himself through Scripture. Adam confuses and conflates these incidents with natural revelation in an attempt to prop up his Roman Catholic method of apologetics. Adam fails to hit this target on this point as well.

Aside from some minor differences, as a classical apologist this is essentially my position! Because we are human beings our minds are able to be written upon in certain ways such that we can know reality. From our knowledge of “the world and how it operates” our minds naturally reason to the fact that there must be an uncaused cause that simply is Being/Existence itself sustaining everything else in existence. There is more work to be done from this truth in order to show that this is the God of the Bible and that Christianity as a whole is true, but on this point at least, I am glad I can welcome Fred to my side of the debate in practice even if not in principle. For, once one actually starts doing apologetics, it is very difficult to do anything other than classical apologetics even as one verbally denies its merits.

In truth, there are significant differences between the classical approach and the presuppositional approach when it comes to defending the Christian worldview. For starters, the classical approach fits seamlessly within the Roman Catholic version of the gospel. For those of us who are truly Protestant in our confession, and in our Christianity, such an approach simply will not do. Adam, in his approach, has assigned a measure of self-sufficiency to man. Man is capable of examining brute facts and inferring from these facts (that are supposedly just there) to the conclusion that God probably exists. But this is impossible since there is no such thing as brute fact, and since fallen man has been hopelessly affected in his thinking by the fall. The truth is that we simply do not witness this classical approach to apologetics anywhere in Scripture. It is absent from Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

Adam claims that knowledge begins with sense experience and proceeds from there. But why must we accept his claim? What exactly is sense experience and what role does the human mind play in cataloguing it? How does the mind know to order reality in the way it does? That knowledge does not come through sense experience. Adam claims that our minds are written upon by sense experience. I have to confess that this scenario seems more than a little outrageous. The truth of the matter is that we impose our worldview on the things we experience rather than the other way around. And that is the basic difference between classical apologetics and presuppositional apologetics. The human mind is active in the knowing process contrary to Adam’s approach, which seems to suggest that the mind is passively written upon by sense experience. In that scheme, the skeptics rightly conclude that knowledge about is something man could never attain. Skepticism wins the day.

Adam presumes that there is some sort of agreement between the believer and unbeliever about how the world operates. This is simply not the case. The unbeliever sees a world that is operating by impersonal laws of nature, the random product of time and chance. This world sprang into existence millions of years ago as the result of an accident of nature. The Christian sees the world differently. Knowledge of reality is possible and works the way it does only because the Christian worldview is true. God created the universe and all that is in it. He created man with an innate knowledge of Himself and man is capable of gaining knowledge about his world because, initially, he knows His creator, has been created in God’s image, and is designed to gain knowledge in precisely the manner in which he does. “It is important to understand powerful philosophical errors, both in original and in subsequent adaptations of thought, which have shaped the whole cultures, as well as our own outlook, without our knowing it.” [Meek, Loving to Know: Covenantal Epistemology]

Just to keep things painfully simple, Adam, like most classical apologists, claims that men do not possess innate knowledge of God. In response to this, Paul says, where unregenerate men are concerned, in Romans 1:21, “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” Stay tuned.

The Appalling State of Christian Apologetics

The Apostle Peter wrote, “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” The basis for Christian apologetics is found in this simple command. What does it look like to sanctify Christ in one’s heart? It means rather than regard man, his threats, and his intimidation tactics, we are to place Christ first, in the most sacred and cherished position possible. Christ is to be elevated above everything else we desire in this life. Christ is to be exalted above our family, our possessions, our career, and even our reputation. The Greek word hagiadzo means to feel reverence for or to honor as holy. It means to treat as holy. The terrible tragedy in this explanation is that the modern evangelical mind has nearly lost all of its sense for the “holy.” In order to appreciate this, you have to travel back into first-century Palestine, into the Jewish mind, and attempt to understand what they understood by this incredibly rich word, holy. Space will not allow a treatment here. The main thrust of my point is that Peter is commanding his audience not to regard the reactions that men have to the gospel. Instead, we are to regard Christ as holy in the deepest parts of our being.

While we are doing this, we are to be in a constant state of readiness. We must always be prepared to “make a defense” to anyone. To make a defense of what? The hope that is in us! First of all, what does Peter have in mind when he uses the word apologia in this context? Ellliot is helpful, “Occasionally, in the NT the noun, apologia is used in reference to a personal “defense” before judicial officials. Elsewhere, however, it denotes a reply to accusations of a general rather than a legal nature. The term apologia is used here in this latter sense, as the context demonstrates.” The Greek expression etoimos aie…panti toi aitounti indicates there is no specific trial that Peter has in mind but rather, a general state of preparedness to deal with a challenge from any quarter. Clifford McManis is correct when he points out, “First, they misrepresent the actual meaning of the way Peter used the word apologia, and second, they try to milk too much out of one word by attempting to construct an entire field of discipline out of one isolated term. This mishandling of the biblical text by most modern apologists is not at all surprising given their intense attraction to philosophy and their corresponding lack of enthusiasm for theology and exegesis.

We are to provide a defense “to everyone who asks” us for an “account of the hope that is us.” They are asking for some justification as to why they witness such bizarre hope, strange hope, in Peter’s audience, in the Christian community. Explain or justify this hope that you have! Indeed, Peter’s audience was well aware that such an explanation could come with great peril. Hence, Peter provides encouragement, instruction, and even a mandate. Notice that this behavior is commanded of all Christians. The NT nowhere indicates that there is a special field of apologetics or a special office of apologist. Every Christian, every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is called to provide this same defense to anyone asking from any quarter. The idea that this is a special calling and special area of discipline is simply not supported by Scripture in any way whatsoever.

Since apologetics is dealing with the hope that is in us, it is only reasonable that we conclude that apologetics must be about the gospel because, after all, the gospel is the basis for the hope that is in us. In other words, if we want to defend this mysterious hope that is in us, the best way, no, the only way to do it is to issue the gospel to the inquirer. The Greek word elpis means to look forward with great confidence. What was it that Peter’s audience was looking forward to? We need to look back at Peter’s prologue in order to connect those dots: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” We have been born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead! It is this living hope that NT Christians were being commanded to provide justification for to anyone that asked them to do so. And what is our justification for the living hope? We have to look no further than the Christ event itself, and specifically, the resurrection of Christ. And if Christ is raised from the dead, we too know that we will someday be raised with Him to a newness of life! But you may be thinking that this stuff is all in the bible and is fine for people that believe the bible and the resurrection, but what about those that do not believe the bible? I think I am safe is saying that those in 1 Peter 3 who were attempting to intimidate the Christians did not, in fact, believe the bible.

So then, if apologetics is really about the gospel, it follows that we must ensure that the philosophy that informs our apologetic, rests firmly on theological foundations. The gospel is about redemption. It is about the Creator God, creating man, the creature. This creature fell into sin, and under the curse of God. God, being infinitely gracious, decreed to rescue His creature from the grip of sin, from the curse under which man has fallen. He accomplished this through the work of Jesus Christ, in His death, burial, and resurrection. Remember, what we are tasked with is to provide justification for the hope that is in us to anyone who asks. That is the mandate. And since apologetics is gospel-centric, informed by a philosophy that rests upon biblical theology, it will necessarily involve gospel proclamation. This means the starting point for Christian apologetics takes us back to the beginning. First, we recall that “in the beginning, God created.” In this we see the Creator/creature distinction. God is uncreated and we are created. God is unlike us in that He is underived and we are derived. God is infinite and uncreated and we finite and created, limited. Second, we recall that God created man in His image and in His likeness, the Hebrew says, bĕṣalmô bĕṣelem. From this we understand two things: we are unlike God, and we are like God. The defense of Christian hope, and that is what we are talking about, must begin here if it is to avoid inconsistencies, fallacies, and unnecessary irresolvable problems, and contradictions. If you have embraced an apologetic method that fails to account for the Creator/creature distinction, you are beginning in a position that is itself not Christian in nature. It is a position that is borrowed from pagan philosophy. It is the product of poor exegesis, if any, and almost a complete neglect of theological study. It is the product of autonomous human reason. It is the product of a fallen, sinful, rebellious rationalism that cleverly disguises itself as wisdom.

The state of modern apologetics is as deplorable as the state of modern evangelicalism to say the least, and yes, there is a direct relationship. At minimum, there is a conceptual incoherence, or at least a confused idea of Christian belief in many quarters of classical apologetics, especially among the younger generation.

First, there is inconsistency in method. One apologist complained that an atheist accused him of inconsistency of method because on the one hand, he did not believe in a literal talking snake in the garden of Eden, or that Balaam’s donkey literally spoke to him, while on the other hand, he wanted to take the virgin birth literally. That atheist was essentially categorizing the apologist’s tactic as a rescuing device. The apologist has classified the snake and the donkey as poetry and wanted to retain the virgin birth as historical narrative. The atheist was correct. Given that both the donkey and the snake appear in historical narrative, to classify the language as poetry is obviously suspicious. Is the apologist too concerned with the insults he might have to face for choosing to take those texts at face value? Has he succumbed to their intimidation?

Second, classical apologetics is anchored in reasoning that is very often not faithful to Scripture. Modern apologetics mishandles Romans 1. Where Romans 1 clearly teaches us that all men know God and are without an excuse for their choosing not to believe, and for choosing to pervert, and corrupt the truth and knowledge that God has given them. Modern apologists pretend this isn’t the case at all, and they reason with the unbeliever in a way that ignores this clear truth of Scripture. The modern apologist wants to make much of the clause “dioti to gnōston tou theou phaneron estin en autois.” Because, that which is known about God is evident within them. The classical apologist wants to take this to mean, among them, not in them. This interpretation, in their way of thinking, allows them to say that they should know God based on all the evidence, but they don’t. Therefore, in their arguments, they claim that we must do more. But Romans 1, in context, does not support such a conclusion. The next sentence says that God has made it plain to them. Rather than Christians having to demonstrate that God is knowable, and known, God has done that work already. In fact, God’s revelation of Himself in nature to all men, by way of the human conscience, and by way of all the facts of creation, is so clear and efficacious that not a single human being has any justification for choosing to believe otherwise than that God exists as our Creator and sovereign Lord. Ignoring this truth, classical apologists prefer to pretend the state of affairs is otherwise than Romans 1 describes and they go off to construct elaborate philosophical arguments designed to “clear the obstacles” to faith or “soften the heart” as I have been told so many times. This approach is not faithful with Christian belief as I have shown in this paragraph.

Second, the use of Bayesian theorem of probability is inappropriate for the events of divine revelation and especially the resurrection event. Another very popular approach is to use Bayes’ theorem of probability to argue for the likelihood of the resurrection. The claim is made that given all the possible explanations, it is probably true that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Philosophers refer to this tool as abduction. It claims to reason to the best possible explanation. It fails for many reasons that are too numerous to get into. The basic problem is that it is highly controversial to use probability with an event that only happened once. The second problem is that Scripture is not open to the possibility that Jesus didn’t raise from the dead. Once again, I would say to even consider it possible that Christ did not raise from the dead is a confused way to think about the thunderous announcements about the event extended by God Himself in the text.

Third, the classical apologetic operates on the assumption of the efficacy of autonomous human reason. Human reason is the final authority, rather than God speaking in Scripture. Simply put, there is something terribly wrong with the scenario where man is the judge and God and Sacred Scripture are the defendants. Christian beliefs about God, and God speaking are subjected to the sinful criteria of pagan unbelievers and unless they can pass the test, well then, belief in God, and in God speaking, and in God being known and knowable are classified as incoherent and irrational. The classical apologist takes the most implausible approach of pretending that man is in the rational driver’s seat and that it is his job is to satisfy the pagan criteria regarding what is reasonable belief and what is not reasonable belief.

At its core, classical apologetics (any non-reformed approach to apologetics) embraces a non-Christian metaphysic as well as epistemology by failing to recognize the difference between human and divine knowledge (rationalism and empiricism) and rejecting the noetic effects of sin (rationalistic gospel). Man is created in the image of God. He is a creature. His knowledge of the world is derived. God’s knowledge is underived. Man’s knowledge is dependent on divine revelation. God’s knowledge is determinative. Additionally, man has fallen into sin and suffers from those effects of sin in every part of his being. Classical apologetics ignores the metaphysical reality of man’s dependence on God prior to the fall and his hopeless condition after the fall. Philosophically speaking, the classical apologist has embraced a philosophy that rests on ancient Greek philosophy rather than a philosophy that rests on biblical foundations. Additionally, classical apologetics fails to recognize that Christians must adopt a distinctly Christian epistemology. Rather than adopt pagan views about human reason and empiricism, Christians affirm that human knowledge is revelational in nature. Apart from God, human predication is impossible. All knowledge is revealed knowledge. This was true prior to the fall and it is true today. On the one hand, classical apologetics gives man too much credit for what he knows, and on the other hand, it gives him too little credit for what he knows, but only where it is convenient to do so and where the system's own self-interest is concerned.

I am convinced that there is a serious crisis in the field of apologetics. If you are reading this article correctly, I am calling into question the legitimacy of apologetics as a separate discipline. I reject the idea of an "office" of apologist and consider it unbiblical. I am contending that everyone is to engage in the defense of the Christian hope that is within us. I am also observing that most of those engaged in Christian apologetics are confused about Christian belief, holding to views that are incoherent and out of step with the basic teachings of Scripture concerning God, man, sin, and human knowledge. Many young apologists are the products of modern evangelicalism. As such, many of these young men aren’t even regenerated. They have made external commitments to Christ based on arguments and historical evidence but not as a result of the inward miraculous work of the Holy Spirit. If it is possible to convert to Islam based on spurious arguments and beliefs, surely it is possible to do the same with a false Christianity. And that is the state of affairs as it has come to be in the modern world of Christian apologetics. It remains to be seen what you and I will do about it.