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.
No comments:
Post a Comment