Intellectual Pugilism and Christian Apologetics

Please being to visit: Reformed Reasons here

Each of us, being sinners by nature, have our sinful proclivities. One person may have a proclivity for arrogance, another may struggle with sexual lusts, be they adulterous or same-sex attractions. Still, others are stubborn, having a difficult time submitting to anyone, while some seem to be more tempted than others with deceit. We all have our sinful proclivities. The sooner we acknowledge that they are there, admit it, and begin to face them head-on, the better off we will be. I have numerous sinful proclivities with which I have to deal day in and day out. I have the usual make temptation to look a little longer than I should at the attractive young lady. I am tempted to be impatient when I drive in Charlotte traffic. There are others, but there is one in particular I want to talk about today that I think has plagued me for years. That is the sin of looking for a good fight. I have a sinful proclivity to go at it. Now, I am not talking about a physical fight. I am talking about an intellectual temptation. I have wrestled with the sin of intellectual pugilism for most of my adult life. It has been one of those sinful behaviors that I think at times that I am doing pretty well disciplining only to find out that my relapses come far too often. Still, I believe that grace has moved along in the right direction even if I am still very far from where I need to be. My goal is to continue to remind myself and be aware of that wicked desire in me to engage in constant debate, to fight the fight. Far too often I have used the excuse of the condition of the church to fuel and satisfy my sinful desire to just hit the ground swinging. God forgive me and help me always to search my heart so that my behavior reflects a sincere desire to defend God’s truth rather than my own natural desire to engage in the intellectual battle simply for the sake of engaging in a battle.

As I look around at the modern state of Christian apologetics, so-called anyways, I cannot help but notice the subjects that Christian apologists talk about. For instance, attempting to employ Bayes’ theorem in the defense of the resurrection of Christ is just one example of Christian apologetics run amuck. Exactly who are we trying to impress? Look around at some of these apologetics sites and you see all sorts of arguments being made. There is even one very popular blog on ufology. I have no earthly idea why a Christian blogger would invest time in something as mundane as UFOs. It seems to me that some people think the intellect ought to be free to pursue whatever it fancies. And if you dare challenge them on the problems of sheer speculation, you better do so with full body armor in place. Otherwise, all that Christian love and charity that you had expected to be on display is dismissed faster than a good idea in Washington DC.

The intellectual pugilist is always looking for a good fight. Any hint that there may be an opportunity to flaunt his/her intellectual, ninja-like skills, is seized at a moments notice. The opportunity to pummel one’s opponent is simply irresistible. What is odd is that the intellectual pugilist is typically very well-informed. He reads the Scripture. But he very likely reads philosophy and logic texts far more. He is not nearly as interesting in the dull behavior of exhibiting Christian charity and patience as he is in framing the perfect argument so that all who dare to disagree with him receive the intellectual beat-down they deserve regardless of spiritual damage that it produces. For the intellectual pugilist, the content of Scripture is another opportunity to prove that he is right and his opponent is wrong. The intellectual pugilist is not at all interested in your spiritual well-being, your spiritual growth, or your sanctification. He is far more likely to humiliate you than he is to pray for you. I have had Christian apologists put up entire web pages devoted entirely to slandering me. One very popular site that I used to visit regularly did not like my point of view and put up a pic of me, calling me a troll. These tactics are not only hurtful; they are downright ungodly.

Peter’s imperative was not just to defend the Christian faith using any strategy or tactic you please. Peter was just as concerned with how we defend the faith. We are to do so with gentleness and respect. Christian apologetics is no place for anyone with an unbridled, undisciplined lust for intellectual pugilism. I hate to say it but many Christian apologists are simply in this field because it satisfies an evil within, not because they are sincerely interested in helping others. Go disagree with them and see how they react to being told that you think they are wrong. Many of them will not hesitate to engage in insults, slander, and will not for a moment consider your spiritual state as they bring all the rational and philosophical tools to bear on you, their opponent, their enemy.

Have you ever noticed how so many Christian apologists even treat other Christians like they are the enemy? The aim is not to open up the discussion for learning, for sharing, for knowledge transfer, or for deeper discovery. Nope! Not at all. The fear of having to admit one is wrong drives most modern apologists to dig in and do whatever they can, even in the name of Christian love, to defend their position.

Paul commanded Timothy not to pay attention to myths or endless genealogies. They produce useless speculations or investigations. What is the goal of our instruction? Put simply, it is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Paul says that some men, have strayed from these things and as a result, they have turned aside to fruitless discussion. Fruitless discussion is talk that brings with it nothing of any value. If you were to take a poll of most Christian apologists, you would find that for them, the idea that there are subjects and discussions that are completely useless is completely foreign. Nothing is out of bounds and every subject and discussion can be beneficial, no matter what; even ufology.

It is a waste of time for Christian apologists to invest hundreds of hours in the study of philosophy and logic only to walk out into the culture and even with their own community, and begin to beat people over the head with their knowledge and debating skills. Yet, for many, if not most modern Christian apologists, that is precisely the state of affairs that has obtained. Few things are as shockingly ugly than when the intellectually equipped Christian abandons most, if not all civil conduct where Christian ethics is concerned, in an apparent attempt to use their very own brothers and sisters in Christ, to satisfy their own lust for intellectual pugilism. God forbid!

The Insanity of Unbelief

“It is unfortunate, though not surprising, that all humans have fallen in varying degrees into a pit of insanity. Holding mindlessly to false beliefs, failed hypotheses, and unjustifiable ideas, each individual is left clinging for life to any root, branch, or outcropping that will prevent his plummeting decent into the dark abyss of folly.” [Haddad, Insanity]

Paul wrote something very similar, “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Cor. 4:3-4) In our interactions with unbelievers Christians make a grave mistake when we forget that those who are unconverted, living in unrepentant sin, are blind to their sin and ignorant of their wretched circumstance.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with questions of human knowledge. How do humans know things about the world in which we live, including ourselves? By what standard can we claim that we know something? When I say I know there is a tree outside my window I am claiming to know that a particular state of affairs exists at that moment in that place. One does not have to look very far before realizing that this subject, among an almost endless list of subjects, can quickly become extremely complicated. Indeed, the conversation can get downright frustrating for the ordinary person that has little to no interest in philosophical quibbles that seem to add almost no value to their practical life. For that reason, most people, to include Christians avoid the subject of epistemology altogether. And that is a state of affairs worth mourning. It is not in keeping with Christian ethics to engage in intellectual slothfulness. We must arm ourselves to be excellent thinkers and able defenders of the faith. But knowledge must have a starting place. Real knowledge does not exist in a vacuum. What is knowledge and how do we know when we actually possess it?

What is the goal of acquiring knowledge and how shall we proceed? A philosopher may say that the goal of knowledge is to construct a view of the world that reflects how the really world is, how it  really works, what makes it what it is. As to how we shall proceed, opinions are about as vast as there are minds. One could emphasize the mind in the quest for knowledge, pointing to the organizing activity in which the mind is constantly engaged. Others may be quick to say that we should focus on the experience of sensations, observations, forming theories as we go and updating them as our observations change along the way. All this begs the question as to what we are that we should know anything, whatever know actually means. Indeed, knowledge must have a starting point. The common denominator for the approached above, both rationalism and empiricism, is man. Knowledge begins, according to all non-Christian philosophy, with the mind or experience of man. Man is the arbiter of what passes for knowledge versus mere opinion or simple belief. But Christian theism, biblical Christianity, and specifically, the reformed branch of protestant Christianity takes a much different approach to epistemology, man’s theory for how we know.

“Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.” [Calvin, Institutes] When we think about what knowledge is, we must admit that it would be foolish to think that we could ever know anything without first knowing ourselves. But how could such a knowledge ever be acquired in a world where evolutionary theory was actually the state of affairs that had obtained? It seems to me ridiculous to claim that a blob of molecules in motion that exists as some accident of nature, existing without purpose, without cause, without design, could even begin to rise to a place of knowing anything at all. “Again, it is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself.” [Calvin, Institutes] Yet, man clearly wishes to cut himself off from his only source of true knowledge and pretend to himself that he can still know something about himself and the reality in which he exists. Philosophers over the centuries and especially in contemporary times have demonstrated just how fruitless such an endeavor has proven to be. The ancient Hebrew was right; “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” (Prov. 1:7) Knowledge does have a head, a beginning, a starting place: God. One cannot cut off the stream that feeds the pond and expect the pond not to stagnate. “When belief falls victim to indifference, and truth to lies, the sweet breeze of knowledge is replaced by a dispiriting blanket of hot air.” [Haddad, Insanity] Indeed, there is an awful lot of hot air on the landscape today both in secular society and even in the visible Christian community. Men indeed have lost their sanity.

Christianity affirms that men have lost their sanity. The unbeliever has become hopelessly insane. In western culture and especially in American culture we see this more clearly with each passing day. Our society murders millions of babies and convinces itself that it is a woman’s health issue. We actually argue over just how far outside the womb a child has to be before it is considered a human child. Such thinking is simply insane. And it is embraced by those who are most lettered among us. That is insane. Our society thinks that gay sex, a behavior that is obvious unnatural, is not only acceptable, but that it should be celebrated and that those who oppose it are bigots and oppressors that should be denied basic privileges. That is simply insane. We have young girls who are having to tolerate boys (who feel like they are girls) in their bathrooms and locker rooms all across the country and educated leaders are telling us this is perfectly ok. That is insane.

There are people in Christianity who deny the creation account of Scripture, a literal Adam and Eve, almost all the Old Testament historical events, the miracles throughout Scripture, that Jesus literally rose from the dead, that Christ is the only way to eternal salvation, that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God, that homosexual sex is morally acceptable, that abortion is a viable alternative for the Christian, and a host of other ideas and that you can still be a Christian while holding to any one or even all of these things. That is insane.

The apostle Paul wrote, “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. He also wrote just a few verses later, So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. (Eph. 4:17-18) This says it all. We must keep these facts in the forefront of our mind when we interact with the unconverted. They are ignorant, blind, without true knowledge, filled with hate for God. Forget this and we run the risk of compromising the gospel not to mention setting ourselves up for a failed apologetic. To the church at Rome the same apostle wrote, “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.” (Rom. 1:21) The epistemic state of the unbelieving mind is dismal. This raises the question as to why Christians seemingly extend such reverence to the unconverted arguments against God. Jesus nor His apostles ever did anything as silly and perhaps as contemptible as to extend respect to intellectuals whose minds were sworn enemies of God, devoid of understanding, immoral and unethical from start to finish. Instead they challenged the God-hating ignorant and the arrogant with the facts of the gospel. They brought the divine law to bear on the situation and demanded repentance. So too should we.

As Christians and Christian apologists, we must recognize from the start why the unconverted have such a problem with knowledge. We cannot allow ourselves to be drawn in to confusing and fruitless arguments about rationalism and empiricism as if the human mind is capable of acquiring an unfiltered, neutral knowledge of God. Yes, all men know that God is there. This knowledge is innate regardless of what the most brilliant philosophers say about innate knowledge. They are wrong because their epistemic starting point is man not God. Paul wrote, “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” (1 Cor. 1:21) The problem is that even though all men possess a universal knowledge of God, all unconverted men also have a universal filter by which that knowledge is perverted. The sinful human mind does its work on this innate knowledge, happily engaging in the fine art of self-deception. The most compelling arguments and the clearest evidence in the world will not persuade the unconverted that Christian theism is true and that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. Only God can do that. And God only does that through the preaching of the gospel, not sophisticated philosophical rhetoric. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption. (1 Cor. 1:30) And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. 1 Cor. 2:1-5)

Epistemology is a complex and challenging branch of philosophy which is itself a complex field. Christians are wrong to avoid it. But we are also wrong to think it is the key to being better witnesses to the gospel. It is not the key. It is an excellent and useful tool. But it should never become our primary tool. Understanding epistemology and how philosophers argue and how they think will help us understand where and why their view collapses. And that is not a bad thing. The modern man has indeed lost his sanity.

The philosopher’s dialectics never cease, and the questions once posed remain with the same daunting force, driving us to reflection and debate and contributing all the more to our epistemic bewilderment. The feeble phantoms of Mount Olympus cannot silence our thirst for knowledge. And so we rave, we rage, and we rant in debate for the hope and the comfort of a justified true belief. [Haddad, Insanity]

In response to this, the Christian says with the apostle Paul, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Col. 2:3) It is in Christ alone that our thirst for knowledge will be satisfied. For God has made Him to be for us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. (1 Cor. 1:30)

Apologetic Method Matters – Adam at Ratio Christi and Fred Butler on Classical versus Presuppositional Apologetics

I am going to pick up where I left off with Adam’s endorsement of William Lane Craig’s view that philosophy takes primacy of place in the field of Christian apologetics, and theology as well for that matter, and to put it bluntly, all things requiring any sort of interpretive exercise whatsoever. In other words, if it requires human interpretation, philosophy is the magistrate under whose domain it resides. Since it is to Craig that Adam points, it is to Craig we shall turn in order to understand why it is philosophy rather than theology as derived from sound biblical exegesis that should dictate the accuracy and truthfulness of our interpretations of reality, knowledge, and ethics.

One does not have to read far in Craig’s philosophy project in order to understand where he thinks philosophy fits in Christian theology: He writes, “Because philosophy operates at a presuppositional level by clarifying and justifying the presuppositions of a discipline, philosophy is the only field of study that has no unquestioned assumptions within its own domain.”[1] In other words, only philosophy is objectively pure. Only in philosophy is there neutrality. And that neutrality can be leveraged to serve as the standard for all human predication. If philosophy or human reason has a better explanation for biblical revelation, then our theology must be reworked, and our interpretation revised in order to satisfy that standard. Robert Marrihew Adams poses an excellent question in his article on Kierkegaard’s “Arguments Against Objective Reasoning in Religion” when he asks, “If you are willing to abandon your ostensibly religious beliefs for the sake of objective inquiry, mightn’t we justly say that objective inquiry is your real religion, the thing to which you are most deeply committed?”[2] One has to ask if faith ought to be thought of as unconditional devotion to a belief.[3] And in this case, is it not fair to ask proponents of Classical Apologetics if their real religion is objective evidence, science, and autonomous human reason rather than the uncomplicated revelation of God speaking to us in the revelation of Scripture? I think it is entirely fair top to bottom to raise this as an issue because I think it is the issue, that is, the defining difference between the classical and the presuppositional methods.

Is Craig’s claim that philosophy has no unquestioned assumptions correct and does it even matter? Let us ask this question without the double negative. Is it true that every assumption in the field of philosophy is questioned? Whether or not that is actually true seems irrelevant to me. I can question everything that is claimed by every system making a claim and that really tells me nothing about the soundness of my method. A crazy person could take up such a practice. Would that mean he is a genius? In all seriousness, if it really is the case that every assumption has to be subjected to questions, then how are we ever going to get the philosophical train out of the station and on it’s way. Why is this important? I think it is obvious why this is important. If Craig’s claim is true, we would have an infinite regress of questions in rational inquiry, and as a result, no claims could ever be made. It is the nature of finitude to end someplace so that human predication can have a starting point. So Craig’s claim that philosophy is as pure as the driven snow when it comes to objectivity and neutrality strikes me as simply wrong. Not only this, it is not at all obvious to me how this view does not lead to an arbitrary subjectivism and ultimately, skepticism.

There are two fundamental roles that philosophy attempts to play on the playground of human predication. First, philosophy has the critical task of putting questions to certain claims. But even this task must have some starting point. It must assume some basic things, like my questions are valid, my inquiry is meaningful, truth is discoverable, err is possible. Second, philosophy has the constructive task of providing a positive statement for what reality, the world, life, knowledge, and morality are all about. Philosophy wants to construct a worldview by which humans may understand their world and order their lives in a way that is meaningful and intelligible. However, one must understand that there are only two options open to philosophers (and we are all philosophers) in order to get the project of philosophy off the ground: either human reason will serve as the standard by which all claims are measured, or, God’s divine revelation will serve as the standard by which all claims are measured. Either man will be the ultimate reference point for human knowledge or God will be that reference point. Note that this is a decision that has to be made before philosophy can even begin. How will we go about deciding the answer?  This is the famous chicken and the egg dilemma. But this dilemma is a bit more serious than eggs and toast. Notice that we have to have some very basic presuppositions, assumptions, that is, unchallenged assumptions before we can even get going. The house of human knowledge, because it is finite and dependent, must rest upon something other than itself if it is to refute the charge of hanging in mid-air.

Aristotle told us that if we wish to succeed, we must ask the right preliminary questions. If, then, we wish to succeed theologically, may we straightaway begin talking of God, or is there something we must say, or do, beforehand?[4] Can we begin with the idea that we all have the same information about God? Does not Calvin inform us that we all know God? There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. This we take to be beyond controversy.[5] If this is all there were to the state of affairs that has obtained, then perhaps Craig and the classical approach may be a sound way of approaching this issue.  Moreover, if this actually is a reflection of the state of affairs as it is, then we must ask the question “why revelation?” If man is created in a way that he can actually reason, contemplate, calculate, and investigate matters from a neutral standpoint and reach the right conclusions on his own steam, then why do we need revelation at all? In fact, what happened at the fall? I am afraid that we have not heard the other side of the story and as you will hopefully see; the difference between classical and presuppositional apologetics is actually informed by basic theological commitments, which are either informed by the exegesis of divine revelation or by pagan philosophy. This is where the argument actually lives.

They do not apprehend God as he offers himself, but imagine him as they have fashioned him in their own presumption.[6] The point is that basic commitments are already at play before the investigation even starts. Moreover, it makes the profoundest difference in where you begin and how you proceed if you are a Christian or a non-Christian. In fact, no other single factor could even come close to having the impact that this question has on where you begin and how you proceed than “are you a Bible-believing Christian?” If this question has no impact on your metaphysic, your epistemology, and your ethic, then I am not sure a rational conversation is even possible, let along fruitful and promising.

The vital interpretative question for postmoderns is simply this: what makes one interpretation better than any others?[7] When the Christian begins his interpretation of the world, to include his interpretation of the art of interpretation, his only option is to begin with God. The reason the Christian begins with God is because, “In the beginning God.” If God has not preceded the beginning and had not acted in the beginning, the Christian contends we could know, understand, or interpret nothing. Intelligibility would be impossible. God acts in the beginning to create and to communicate. Neither interpretation nor interpretative approaches are innocent.[8]

Scripture not only presents itself as self-attesting, and as our sole authority for human predication, it presents itself as self-interpreting. Scripture provides our standard, not only for understanding reality, God, the commandments, but it also serves as our basic paradigm for meaningful communication. Scripture should be viewed as divine communicative action. Scripture is not Paul, or Peter or Moses speaking, but rather, God speaking. Again, Scripture is God speaking. I submit that God is present in Scripture precisely as a communicative agent, its ultimate author.[9]

A Christian philosophy of metaphysics states plainly that “In the beginning God created.” Additionally, God holds all things together by the word of His power. Moreover, Hebrews 11:3 informs us that we understand metaphysics by faith. “Faith enables us to understand that the visible universe was created by something invisible, namely, by the word of God. The suggestion that πίστει be taken with κατηρτίσθαι, meaning that it was by faith that God created the world (Widdess, Haacker 1969) has little to commend it; faith is not elsewhere predicated of God in Hebrews, and this construction would make ῥήματι θεοῦ redundant.”^[10]

A Christian philosophy of epistemology states that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Prov. 1:7). Moreover, that same Scripture tells us that those who do not seek the Lord actually hate knowledge (Prov. 1:29) contrary to what we are told by so many pagan philosophers and some misguided Christian philosophers. Additionally, Paul tells us that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ (Col. 2:3). Again, A Christian philosophy that is derived from sound biblical exegesis informs that the all men know God and suppress that knowledge (Rom. 1:18-19), that unregenerate men are not willing or even able to understand spiritual truth (1 Cor. 2:14), that the god of this world has blinded their eyes (2 Cor. 4:4), and finally, unregenerate men walk in the futility of their mind, by nature having their understanding corrupted with darkness (Eph. 4:17-24).

Finally a Christian philosophy of ethics is grounded in the commandment that we ought to love the Lord our God with our entire being and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Rather than seeing the good in humanity, as pagan philosophy and all unbelieving thought does, Christian philosophy takes a distinctly different view of man. A biblically informed Christian philosophy of ethics claims that man is dead in his trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1), that no man is good in terms of his disposition toward God (Rom. 3:10-18), and that unregenerate men are enemies of God (Rom. 8:6-8). All men have been placed under sin and are under the curse (Gal. 3:22).

From this it can be concluded that the sort of neutrality required in order for autonomous human reason or philosophy if you prefer, is impossible and therefore, secular philosophy is incapable of providing for the sort of objective, stand-alone criteria humanity requires in order to make human experience intelligible. This is true for our philosophy of reality, of knowledge, and morality. Sin has placed man under a curse and his ethical disposition places him at odds with divine revelation in every area of knowledge. Under this scheme, human predication is reduced to skepticism because it fails to anchor its metaphysic, it’s epistemology, and it’s ethic in the divine action of God speaking in Scripture. And it is precisely this God that Christian apologetics is called forth and duty-bound to proclaim and defend.

---

[1] James Porter Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 13.

[2] Baruch A. Brody, ed., Readings in the Philosophy of Religion: An Analytic Approach, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, ©1992), 55.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, ©2002), 15.

[5] Calvin, Jean. The Library of Christian Classics. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. 2 vols. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, [2001?] Vol. 1, 43.

[6] Ibid., 47.

[7] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, ©2002), 23.

[8] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, ©2002), 23.

[9] Ibid., 34.

^[10] Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1993), 568.