An Epistemology of Grace

            “Now therefore, if I have found favor in your sight, please show me now your ways, that I may know you in order to find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.” Ex. 33:13

The Background

• The people of Israel have been delivered miraculously from Egyptian bondage by the mighty hand of God.
• They have passed through the red sea and have come to the base of Mt. Sinai.
• Moses has recieved and delivered the Covenant with its commandments and the people of Israel have affirmed their covenant with God.
• Moses has returned to the top of the mountain and received additional instructions from God to the people.
• But while Moses is on the mountain, the people get restless, and, as we tend to do, they grew obstinate and returned to their sinful ways.
• This includes the egregious sin of idolatry, which the people committed by creating a golden calf and worshipping it.
• There are a number of theories as to the identity of the calf. The two most likely theories are that the calf was associated with Ba'al or perhaps it had ties to the mood god Sı̂n. It is thought that the latter theory had slightly more evidence than the former.
• After Israel commits her idolatry, Moses intercedes on her behalf.
• It is during this back and forth with God that Moses utters the text that serves as the basis for this post.

Moses begins his petition with a plea for grace that leads to revelation. In other words, divine revelation on God’s part is an act of divine grace. We do not deserve divine revelation. God would have been well within his right to leave human beings to their own devices, wallowing in immorality and epistemic blindness. Moses points up to grace and asks God to show him his ways, literally, “that I may know your ways.” Moses depends on God’s kindness for knowledge of God’s ways. So here we have our first premise: Human knowledge is utterly dependent on God. If it involves humans, and if it involves knowledge, it necessarily involves God. I always want to point out that the construction here in the Hebrew, weʿǎt·tā(h), is drawing a conclusion from a previous statement. That previous statement is located in v. 12: Moses reminds God that God had said to him, “I know you by name.” In other words, LORD, you know me by name, therefore, give me grace that I may know your ways. But it gets better.

The Hebrew word ḥēn appears 69x in the OT. The ESV translates it favor 53x, and grace 10x. Of the 69 occurrences, 43x it appears in the phrase "to find favor in the eyes of." According to Flack the verb describes “an action from a superior to an inferior who has no real claim for gracious treatment. [Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.] It is used when Noah is said to have found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:8)

Moses knew that if he was going to know God’s ways, God would have to graciously show them to him. He knew that there was no amount of evidence, arguments, or autonomous human reason that he could call upon in order to know God’s ways. He was epistemically helpless.

The Hebrew construction is very interesting: hōwdiʿēnî is a Hif'il imperative of ydʿ. The Hif'il stem represents the subject as causing an object to participate indirectly as a second subject in the notion expressed by the verbal root. [Waltke] Not only is this verb in the Hif'il stem, it is in the imperative conjugation. This means that Moses is expressing a strong desire for God to cause him to know God's ways. Moses is pleading with God to cause him to know God’s ways. What about this word “ways?” According to the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, it ranges from, way, path, road, passage, 2. journey, 3. venture, mission, errand. 4. manner, 5. course of life, conduct, morality, 6a. commandments of Y., 6b. activity of Y., 7. hill, mountain, pasture. This word appears 680x in the BHS biblical text and it is translated way/ways 516 in the ESV. In Gen. 6:12 it is used in an ethical sense: “for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.” In Psalm 1:1 we are told that the man who does not stand in the way of sinners is blessed. Moses wants to know God’s ways. So, he pleads to God to cause him to know them.

The next construction wĕʾēdāʿăkā connects knowledge of God’s ways with knowledge of God. Literally, “and know you.” In other words, to know God one must know God’s ways. To grow in one’s knowledge of God, one must grow in his or her knowledge of God’s ways. The idea that knowledge of God can be separated from knowledge of God’s ways is patently false. The Bible paints just the opposite picture. So here we stand. We need grace in order to know God’s ways. And we need to know God’s ways if we are going to know God. Therefore, we need grace in order to know God in the manner described by Moses. Apart from divine grace then, knowledge of God as described by Moses is impossible.

Finally, Moses tells God that his purpose for wanting to know Him is so that he may find favor in his eyes. In other words, Moses’ real petition is that he would please God. Moses wants to live a life that pleases God. But in order to live a life that pleases God, Moses knows that he has to know God. And in order to know God, Moses knows that he has to know God’s ways. And Moses knows that in order to know God’s ways, God has to act graciously upon Moses to cause him to know God’s ways. This means that the only way we can live a life that is pleasing to God is if God Himself takes the initiative to dispense his divine favor, his amazing grace, upon us.

What are the implications of this passage for Christian theology and apologetics? First, it means that men cannot truly know God unless they know God’s ways and they cannot know God’s ways unless God acts to open their eyes. That act is a supernatural act of grace initiated by God alone. Yes, Moses petitioned God but God had already known Moses. This is the prayer of a regenerate man. An unregenerate man would never pray such a prayer because God does not know him and he does not know God.

This means that an apologetic method must acknowledge the Bible’s description of the unregenerate condition. We see how men come to know God throughout Scripture. I like to begin with the New Covenant description and move from there.

The New Covenant tells us that it is God who brings men into the covenant and that God is the one who teaches men and writes his law upon their heart and places the fear of Him in their heart. (Jer. 31-32)

Solomon clearly tells us that the fear of the Lord is the very beginning of knowledge. (Prov. 1:7) Again, it is God who places the fear of the Lord in the hearts of men. Unless God acts, there is no beginning of knowledge.

Luke tells us that Christ opened the minds of the disciples to understand the Scriptures. (Lu. 24:45) The act of opening up the mind was and is divine, supernatural.

Luke again reminds us in Acts 16:14 that it was the Lord who opened Lydia’s heart to respond to the gospel. The Lord acts and when he does, men always respond. Otherwise we are left with the implausible notions that God opens men’s minds and they still reject his good news or men come to understand the gospel themselves, based on their own analyses and assessments and criteria.

John articulates the epistemic situation quite clearly when he says, “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” (1 Jn. 5:20) Here John says that our knowledge of the One who is true is dependent on our understanding, which is itself, dependent on the act of the Son of God coming and giving us that understanding. Apart from that act, we simply cannot know the One who is true.

Apart from faith that is given by grace, men cannot possess true knowledge of God.

Unregenerate men have not been given faith by grace.

Therefore, unregenerate men cannot possess true knowledge of God.

Now, if unregenerate men cannot possess true knowledge of God, they also cannot possess true knowledge of God’s ways. And since they cannot possess true knowledge of God’s ways, they cannot possibly subject Christian belief to a fair evaluation. They simply do not possess the necessary tools to do so. Only God can do that. Where does that leave us? Think about it.

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 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.