Christian Evidences CA312 LESSON 06 of 12 Victor M. Matthews, STD Former Professor of Systematic Theology Grand Rapids Theological Seminary This is lecture 6 of the course entitled Christian Evidences. We are considering the statement out of the Bible that Peter makes in 1 Peter 3:15, where it is said, Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. Last time we talked about the verification of Christianity, and I want to continue that in this lecture. This is one of the important facets of Christian evidences or Christian apologetics. It s the question as to how you go about giving an answer; that is, an answer beyond your own personal testimony, which, of course, is always so very important and always first, but then what do you do with a person who rejects your testimony and rejects any belief at all in God or in the Word of God? In the previous lecture, I considered the a posteriori method of apologetic verification. The a posteriori method is starting with observations of nature roundabout us, and then on that basis formulating an assumption about the cause of the effect that we see about it. We considered the cosmological, teleological, anthropological, ontological, and moral arguments. If we start this way, as David Hume has shown, we can never rise above that which we find within nature. Therefore, it becomes quite selfevident that God cannot be infinite because the world is finite. He may be infinite on this argument, but we do not know that He is because of the principle of economy: since the world is many, we cannot really show that God is one. Since the world is imperfect, we are not sure about the perfection of God on that basis. And there are many other arguments against the a posteriori method. Not that the content of all of that is irrelevant. Why, not at all. God has revealed Himself to us through nature. In Romans 1:20 it states that the invisible things of him from the creation [or by the creation] of the world are clearly seen,... even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they [man] are without excuse. And in Romans 2:14 15, it states that non-christians, all people, show 1 of 9
the law of God written in their hearts. All of this is good material for the verification of Christianity, but I do not believe that we can utilize material like that adequately within the a posteriori method. A Biblical Way of Verifying Christianity In this lecture, I come to the a priori method. This, the a priori method in apologetics, is starting where God starts with us, and that is with the revelation of God to us. That is, instead of starting with observations of nature roundabout and then forming an assumption on that basis, we start with the assumption. We start with the belief in the true and the living God and His revelation to us. Allow me to explain that. And I want here in this lecture to present first of all by way of explanation a quote from the book entitled The Verification of Christianity by L. M. Sweet. He states, The rational task of the apologist for Christianity is just the natural task of the advocate of any great generalization of science: To vindicate it on the basis of evidence as the most reasonable hypothesis to explain undoubted facts. Christian apologetics, he goes on to say, is the explication of the fact that the Christian religion explains the world, man, and human history more comprehensibly and more satisfactorily than any other explanation which can be devised. Here is a good statement as to what I mean by the a priori method, and that is it would appear to me from the study of the Word of God that this is a biblical way of verifying Christianity. We start as the Bible starts, with a belief in God and with a belief in the revelation of God, and then on that basis, present the truth and challenge people to explain the world, man, and human history more comprehensibly and more satisfactorily in some other way. If God has created the world, and He did, if man is God s creation, and he is, and if God has revealed Himself, and He has, then his revelation would certainly be a better explanation of His creation than any other kind of an explanation that we can find. It would seem to me that when we approach the arguments within the Scripture itself concerning apologetics or evidences, it would appear that the disciples and even our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, used something like the a priori method that I m advocating in this lecture. For example, in the gospel of John 5:36 37, the Lord Jesus said, But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, 2 of 9
hath borne witness of me. What is the Lord Jesus Christ saying here? He is stating you understand and see my works that I do. He healed people. He cast out demons. He performed miraculous, supernatural events and activities among people. He seems to be stating in John 5, If I am not the Son of God, how do you explain these miracles that I am performing? So He says, I have a greater witness than that of John: the works... bear witness of me. We have something very similar to that in John 10:37 38, where He said, If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Here He is speaking to people who believe the Old Testament. They believe that the Messiah would come to the world. On that basis the Lord Jesus Christ is asking them, If you believe in the Old Testament, do not my miracles and my works conform to what the Old Testament says the Messiah, the Son of God, will do when He comes into the world? Here we would seem to find in the New Testament, and there are many other verses like this let me urge you to read the New Testament with this thought in mind it would seem that there are evidences in the New Testament itself in what I would call the simple a priori method of the verification of Christianity. Science and the a Priori Method This is not such an unusual type of argumentation for us. In our day we are all the products of a scientific age, and we recognize that science, in spite of many things that are said about science and many things that are said by scientists, itself works with the a priori method a good deal. Science is not based upon simple observation of facts, as sometimes we are told. Science has to work with certain assumptions that can never be proven by the scientific method. For example, science has to presuppose the uniformity of nature. How do you prove the uniformity of nature scientifically? You can t do that at all. There s no way of getting to the uniformity of nature. How do we know that it s uniform? The only way that we can accept the uniformity of nature is by stating, If it isn t, then all that we know by science is false. If nature is not uniform, then science is an impossibility because science presupposes that there is a regularity, a uniformity to nature. Another great assumption that science must utilize is human rationality. How do we know that the human mind is rational? We don t know. But if we take it as an assumption, then we can do something in science. In other words, the very activity of science, 3 of 9
the very product of science is the evidence of the truthfulness of human rationality. The same thing is true for causation the cause-and-effect relationship. How do we know that there is such a thing as a causal relationship within nature itself? It has been clearly stated... that we presuppose this. Human causation or human rationality, rather, and causation within nature and uniformity of nature are assumptions that science must take into consideration in its work, and there s no way of directly proving those assumptions. Another assumption is that the sample that they [scientists] utilize is a valid sample. No scientist can investigate exhaustively in his area. He cannot turn over every stone in the universe. After a while he has to be content with a certain number of observations, a certain number of experiences, a certain number of proofs. How does he know that his sample is valid? He has to presuppose this, and he presupposes it on the basis that his assumption is a better explanation of the facts than some other type of an assumption. Now, my friend, this is really what we mean by the scientific method of verification. When you read in the Introduction to Philosophy textbook or when you read in any book on logic, you will find that there are three basic philosophical theories for verification. One is the correspondence theory, another is the coherence theory, and another one is pragmatism. All three of these are saying the same thing, and that is that once you start with the assumption, the assumption is verified by causing all of the facts that we do know to be explained more comprehensively and more satisfactorily by this assumption than by any other. A Practical Application of the a Priori Method The third thing I d like to come to in this lecture has to do with a practical application of this. When we start out with the assumption in an a priori way, when we start out with belief in the true and the living God and believing in His Word as a presupposition or as an assumption, then let s ask the question, If Christianity is true, what would we expect in certain areas of life that have become quite clear to us? For example, let s start out with such a thing as psychology. This is a very popular science in the day in which we live. First of all when we start with psychology, we are confronted by the fact that man is really hurting in the day in which we live. Man is alienated. He s alienated from true value, or perhaps we could say from God. He s alienated from himself, and he s alienated from others. How do you explain this alienation within man? 4 of 9
If you start with the belief in the true and the living God and His Word, then we do have a very good explanation: the fact that man has been created in the image and the likeness of God, he has been created by God with profound potentiality, man was created back there in the Garden of Eden knowing and loving God without alienation. He was created in righteousness, knowledge, and true holiness. This is what it means to be created in the image and likeness of God in that moral sphere, but the Bible says that man is not only created in the image and likeness of God, but also man is fallen. He has sinned against his Maker. He is a fallen person. If we start out like that, if we start out with the assumption of God and His Word and now apply the Word of God to man, and if we start out with the realization that man has been created in the image and likeness of God but now is fallen, then we have an answer for the dilemma that modern man finds himself in today. We have an answer as to why man is alienated from true value, I would rather say from God Himself, and why man is alienated from himself, and why man is alienated from others. In some parts of our world today, looking at it naturalistically, it can well be said that man has never had it as well as he s had it today. Why is it now that in those countries where provision is made from man almost from the cradle to the grave, that the suicide rate is the highest? Why is that? It s because you don t solve the problems of man simply by a good bank account. You don t find ultimate fulfillment just by having your insurance policies paid up and being able to clip the coupons and to drive around in a status symbol. Not at all. We understand that since man has been created by God, only God can bring satisfaction to the heart. So now, how do we give an answer concerning the genuineness of Christianity? If asked the question if Christianity is true, what would we expect to find among us as members of the human race? If we have been created in the image and likeness of God and are now fallen, we would find among ourselves such a thing as alienation. We would find that man, no matter how fine he would have it, could never find within that fulfillment or satisfaction. It s a wonderful thing, if I might bring in an aside, to remind ourselves that within Christianity we not only have man explained as alienated, but also we have the Lord Jesus Christ making a provision for us that we might be reconciled to Himself. God has entered into our space and time. The Son of God has become a member of our human race. Man is reconciled, and by receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, He can come into our lives, forgive our sins, reconcile us to Himself. It s interesting on 5 of 9
this basis, the Christian is commanded in Matthew 22 to love the Lord our God with all of his heart, soul, and mind, and to love his neighbor as he lives himself. Did you ever notice that Matthew 22, the commandment about loving God, your neighbor, and yourself, is a way of canceling out man s alienation? We re alienated first of all from true value, that is, from God, and here we re told that we can and we must love God. We re alienated from ourselves. We re told in Matthew 22 to love ourselves; we re alienated from our neighbors. In Matthew 22 to we are to love our neighbor. Yes, there is within Christianity a redemption, a reconciliation to God. Secondarily, if we start off now by way of illustration, if we start out with the presupposition or the assumption that the true and living God exists and that He has revealed Himself to us through the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Scripture, now let s apply that to what we know about anthropology. It s interesting that wherever the anthropologist finds man, there are always two or three characteristics of him. Wherever man is found, no matter how far back seemingly we go, no matter how many thousands of years, whenever we find man and have enough evidence there of recognizing what kind of a civilization or what kind of a culture he had, no matter how rudimentary, there are always two or three characteristics of this. For example, there are always characteristics that man is moral. He has an ethical standard in some way. It s interesting when you approach this matter of morality from the philosophical viewpoint that some of the greatest philosophers in history have emphasized this element, this characteristic that man has a sense of obligation. It was Plato, for example, representing the best of Greek philosophy, who described man as possessing a consciousness of a universal, decisive standard that existed apart from himself into which he was subjected. For Plato, man was a moral person, and he realized his potentiality only to the degree that he responded to this moral law that was on the outside of him. I don t believe in the metaphysics of Platonism, not at all, but Plato is correct when he pointed out in his philosophy that man is subject to moral law. And it was that famous philosopher, Immanuel Kant, who described man in a very similar way to Plato. He said every man possessed a consciousness of an I ought or I ought not. This can be explained, Immanuel Kant went on to say in some of his books, by the fact that there is a lawgiver who says Thou shalt and Thou shalt not. We recognize that Immanuel Kant was not trying to verify Christianity at all in his philosophy. He was simply 6 of 9
attempting to describe man as he found him. Whenever you find man, whenever the anthropologist finds man, no matter how rudimentary his civilization or culture may be, there s always that sense of morality. And wherever you find man, no matter how rudimentary his culture may be, you always find that he is a religious person. There s always an element, some element of religion in his culture. How do you explain this if God does not exist and if the Word of God, the Bible, is not true? How can you explain the fact that man has always been characterized by an ethic of some kind? I m not talking about the content of the ethic that changes. That changes from one valley to another. That changes from one continent to another, from one geographical place to another, from one group of individuals to another group, so it s not the content we re talking about. We re talking about the fact of ethics, not its content. Wherever you find man, you always find him moral in some sense of the term; that is, moral in his own eyes, but nevertheless with a well-developed sense of an ethic. Secondarily, he s always a religious person. If we start out with God and His Word, then we can explain that. We can explain it on the basis that man was created in the image and likeness of God and that man was created in fellowship with God. Now man is fallen, and therefore his standard of ethics has great variety within it, and his religion is perverted and pulled all out of shape. Man has become an idolater in every sense of the term, but nevertheless if we start out with God and His Word, then we can explain all of that. If you start out without believing in God and His Word, how can you explain this anthropological element, that man is moral and a religious person? I was interested the other day looking at a series of plates in the National Geographic of some of the cave paintings in southern France. These are some of the oldest evidences of human culture, and it s interesting, as the article went on to point out, that these paintings, cave paintings in southern France, of ancient men indicate that his religion and how his religion was tied in with the hunt, with the need for food. This is an interesting thing. Does this mean on the basis of the anthropologist that ancient man was characterized by the strong element of religion? How do we explain that if we do not believe in God and His Word? 7 of 9
This is what I mean by the a priori approach. If we start with the assumption of the true and the living God and His Word, then we can make sense out of the problems and the facts of the world. We can make sense, for example, out of modern psychology and the need that man has, and we can on the basis of Christianity solve some of man s problems. We can not only explain why he is in the problem and the difficulty he is in, but also we can give some answers to it. And we can do the same with anthropology. We can make the same statement about science and philosophy and perhaps sociology and a few other of the disciplines. For example, in science we can explain why nature is uniform, why there is a causal relationship. We can explain human rationality, and we can explain why the scientists must work with certain necessary systems of value. These are all pure assumptions as far as science is concerned, but for the Christian who believes in the true and the living God and His Word, we can explain uniformity of nature and causation, human rationality and value systems by the fact that God has made the world and made mankind. When you approach philosophy, we recognize that within philosophy there are these three great problems: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, and these three great problems can also be explained on the basis of Christianity. We have ways of getting to these problems in philosophy. But then let s turn the coin around and look at the other side. There are not only such things as ordinary facts like science, philosophy, psychology, and anthropology about us; there are extraordinary facts, however, just as factual and just as historical such a thing as the existence of Israel s religion. How do we explain that if we do not believe in God and His Word? I ll say more about that in the next lecture. And prophecy and the person of the Lord Jesus Christ and His profound effect upon the world, the reality of miracles, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, Scripture, the existence and spread of the church, the evidence for Christianity that s been found in archaeology, the psychological and beneficial implications of Christian experience, and then the great material we have that has been called early church literature. 8 of 9
If you do not believe in the true and the living God, what do you do with such facts as these? And these are just as factual as the facts of science or philosophy or psychology or anthropology. Don t you see now that if we start out not in the a posteriori way but in the a priori way, if we start out with the assumption where God starts with us of His existence and His Word, then we can make sense out of this world? It s very interesting, if I might go back to the quotation of Sweet where he states, The rational task of the apologist for Christianity is just the natural task of the advocate of any great generalization of science: To vindicate it on the basis of evidence as the most reasonable hypothesis to explain undoubted facts. Christian apologetics is the explication of the fact that the Christian religion explains the world, man, and human history more comprehensibly and more satisfactorily than any other explanation which can be devised. Christ-Centered Learning Anytime, Anywhere 9 of 9