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.

William Lane Craig on Ayn Rands Objectivism

In case you were reading some of the silliness over at "Incinerating Presuppositionalism" here is William Lane Craig making the very same criticism of Ayn Rand's definition of morality that I am making. So when Dawson Bethric and his followers claim that I simply have misrepresented his understanding of morality, they are either ignorant or desperate, or perhaps a little of both. I intend to follow up my post and my you tube critique with a short overview, and I do mean short, of morality and how to use it and not use it in arguments with atheists like Bethric. For the most part, you can't spend must time with these sorts because the conversation deteriorates into profane juvenile insults as soon as they realize they are dealing with an informed and equipped Christian. I suppose it is their way of avoiding embarrassment or perhaps avoiding the gospel or both.

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.