Apologetic Method Jacob D. Hantla Reformed Theological Seminary, Virtual Campus Christian Apologetics Professor, Dr. John M. Frame June 2008
Apologetic Method 2 Table of Contents The Apologist... 3 Apologetic Method... 4 Apologetics as Evangelism... 5 Apologetics and Circularity... 6 Apologetics and Evidence... 9 Apologetics and the Individual... 10 Bibliography... 12
Apologetic Method 3 Most of the discussions relating to the methods of apologetics are centered around how to do apologetics. However, the most important issues surrounding the methods of apologetics are the character of the apologist and the presuppositions of the apologetic. Christian apologetics must do more than convince one of the plausibility or probability of theism; apologetics must point apologist and skeptic alike to a true knowledge of the God of the Bible and the worldview that flows from that knowledge. In 1 Peter 3:15, the standard proof-text passage validating the existence of apologetics, the apostle commands the believers facing persecution to in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense (ἀπολογίαν, apologion) to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you (ESV). Christian apologetics is generally defined as the theological discipline devoted to the apologia making a defense or giving an answer of the Christian worldview. Before considering how this apologetic is made, we must consider the apologist himself. The Apologist Whenever a non-christian and a Christian interact, there are two totally distinct sets of basic heart-commitments coming into contact 1. The heart of the Christian the center of his affections honors Christ as holy and is committed to living an obedient life to the glory of God (1 Peter 3:10-12; Romans 6:16). The heart of the non-christian, by contrast, does not honor Christ as Lord or as holy (1 Corinthians 12:3; Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 1:21, 29-31) but is committed to only evil (Romans 3:10-18). In 1 Peter 3, the apostle s concern when these 1 Van Til (1976, Chapter 4) calls the interaction a head-on collision of worldviews.
Apologetic Method 4 worldviews collide in an apologetic encounter is the way in which the Christian behaves in that interaction. Likewise, Paul s concern for the Lord s servant is his demeanor while making an argument for the faith. Not only does the apologist proclaim truths about God with his mouth, but he also makes a loud and clear statement about the nature of the God he is representing through his conduct. Just as the Christian and non-christian worldviews are in opposition to each other, so too the character of the Christian and non-christian will be divergent. It is expected that the non- Christian will behaviorally manifest his opposition to God. In contrast, demonstrating his submission to the Lord and love for his opponent, the apologist must be gentle and respectful (1 Peter 3:15), not quarrelsome, kind to everybody, able to teach, and patient in endurance of evil (2 Timothy 2:23-24). Whitcomb writes (1977, 292), It is clear from [the 1 Peter 3] passage, then, that no spiritually effective answers can be given to unregenerate people by Christians concerning the hope that is in them until they have learned to sanctify Christ as Lord in their own hearts. Apologetic Method God must be glorified in the manner in which the truth is presented, and God must be glorified by the truth that is presented in the apologetic encounter. As has already been said, the apologetic encounter is a clash of worldviews: The Christian submits everything including his rational mind to God; the non-christian, while in a sense knowing God (Romans 1:21), refuses to even acknowledge God (Romans 1:18, 28) and rather views his own wisdom and not God as the standard (Romans 1:22; 1 Corinthians 1:18-22). These effects of sin effects on the unregenerate s entirety, including intellect (noetic effects) must be acknowledged. As Frame
Apologetic Method 5 writes (Cowan, 2000, 211), Those who deny God do so, not because they lack evidence, but because their hearts are rebellious. Ultimately the job of the apologist is to do that which the apologist cannot do, change the fundamental way that a person relates to God. The apologist is to argue in a way that the Spirit would use to change one who has a knowledge of God that refuses to honor him as God (Romans 1:21; 2 Timothy 2:25-26) into one who honors God as holy (1 Peter 3:15; Romans 6:16). Apologetics as Evangelism We see then that the task of the apologist is simply a subset of the task of the evangelist. In response to demands in Corinth for evidence and engagement with Greek philosophical wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:22), Paul instead gives them the wisdom of God, the word of God, namely the gospel of Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:1-7), a wisdom which the world will not understand apart from the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14). It is a wisdom that those who God is saving 2 will recognize for what it is, the wisdom and power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18, 30). This does not mean that the apologist abandons wisdom or argument, but rather preaches a wisdom not dictated by the standards of man, but rather by God. For His glory, God will not be found by the wisdom of the world (1 Corinthians 1:21-31). So while the apologist may receive demands for evidence according to the standards of human wisdom, he must be certain that every word of his apologetic response is presented in submission to God s Word toward the end of his hearers salvation. 2 The regenerate with the noetic effects of sin reversed by the noetic effects of salvation, the very imparting of the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16).
Apologetic Method 6 Every apologetic encounter and presentation of evidence must be seen as an opportunity to preach that which God will use to change the hearers hearts: Christ crucified the message of God s substitionary, reconciling death on the sinner s behalf (1 Corinthians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21) 3. The sinner who thinks that he is sitting in judgment over God must be brought into proper relationship to God; he must realize that knowledge obtained apart from submission to God is distorted knowledge. The problem is epistemological, and the non-believer must begin thinking apart from his own autonomy. All true thought is subject to God s Word as the final normative standard (Frame, 1994, 51). Therefore, Frame defines apologetics as the application of Scripture to unbelief (1987, 87). A presuppositional apologetic an apologetic that recognizes that conformity to Scripture is the very criterion of truth is the necessary conclusion of a biblical understanding of the noetic effects of sin and regeneration. Apologetics and Circularity If the Christian apologist is to argue for the truth of God by presupposing the truth of God s Word, is this not circular reasoning, as the conclusion is assumed by the argument itself? Some apologists like William Lane Craig say that the futility of circular arguing for God by using Christian presuppositions precludes its use in apologetics. Rather, as Craig argues, we must start from common ground and build a case for Christianity. He claims that this common ground is the laws of logic and the facts of our experience (2008, 51-57). 3 Note also, in 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16, that the manner in which Paul apologetically presented Christ crucified (not with lofty speech or wisdom, but in weakness, fear, and trembling so that faith would rest in the power of God) is an important compliment to the content of the message. Both the manner and the content are necessary, both are contrary to those of the worldly skeptic, and both are designed to humble man and exalt God.
Apologetic Method 7 How is one to argue that laws of logic (rationalism) and sense experience (empiricism) are valid standards by which to measure truth? In its final analysis an argument for rationality reduces to rational autonomy being accepted as the ultimate standard; the same goes for the argument for empiricism. The Christian recognizes the truth that God is the quintessential reference point, or standard, for truth. The non-christian maintains that God is not the measure of truth, usually substituting the autonomous self in His place. Therefore, again we see that there is no true common ground but rather two mutually exclusive systems that must argue circularly for their ultimate criterion 4. Even the Christian s circularity 5 relating to the ultimate standard can be used as an apologetic tool. As we have seen, unbelief in God does not find its root in lack of evidence, but in sinfully refusing to submit to God. If the goal of apologetics is faith in the gospel, then recognition (through revealing a presupposition) that the non-believer has been entirely in rebellion to God may be a step the Spirit will use to convict of sin. The apologist is not simply trying to add some Christian values or data to the skeptic s worldview; worldview must change, and that happens by repentance and faith in the gospel. Furthermore, with the universal existence of ultimate presuppositions in view, the apologist can demonstrate the inability for anything other than the God of the Bible to function as this norm. The rationalism of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz is irrationalism, as it bases itself on the 4 Frame argues (1987, 130), Circularity in a system is properly justified only at one point: in an argument for the ultimate criterion of the system (emphasis his). And again (2002, 407), There is always a kind of circularity when we are dealing with an ultimate standard. If one s standard of truth is human reason, one can argue for that standard only by rational argument, an argument that presupposes the truth of its conclusion. The critic will be just as guilty of circularity as the Christian is (Frame, 1987, 130). 5 Despite the validity of circularity relating to the ultimate criterion, Frame s advice (1987, 130-131) to avoid narrowly circular arguments, broadening the argument with data submitted to the standard of God s Word, thus making it more persuasive and not viciously circular.
Apologetic Method 8 autonomous thinker and is disconnected from reality. The Humean, empirical understanding of reality that modern science 6 espouses also reduces to irrationalism as it is incapable of describing any necessary or universal truths. The rationalist must be shown the insufficiency of accepting himself as ultimate and instead be directed to the one that makes all logical thinking and argument possible (Frame, 2000, 220), a logical, creator God. The empiricist must be shown that, based on empiricism alone, no universal truths or values can be discerned. Not a single fact can be known unless it be God that gives that fact meaning (Van Til, 1997, chapter 11). The apologist does not then leave the skeptic in irrational despair, nor does he allow him with Kant to say that we must limit our use of reason (rationalism) to the world of experience (phenomenal) and not the noumenal world of things as they really are in themselves. Rather, the apologist should expose this rational-irrational dialectic that is present in all unbelieving thought. He should use that dialectic to point the unbeliever to what is obvious to him but suppressed (Romans 1:18-21) and is necessary for all thinking and knowing something outside of himself namely the creator God of the Bible (Frame, 1987, 59-61, 360-361; Frame, 1994, 69-71). When any ultimate standard (morality, laws of logic, validity of sense-experience, etc.) appealed to by the skeptic is valid leads to knowledge of truth, the apologist can expose that the unbeliever is thinking inconsistently with that inadequate standard and actually thinking as if God were the standard. 7 The unbeliever s problem should be demonstrated not merely to be that he has adopted the wrong ultimate standard, but that his embrace of an inadequate and 6 Philip Johnson in Darwin on Trial does an excellent job of exposing the irrationalism and inconsistency in science, particularly as relates to Darwinian evolution and natural selection. Johnson dismantles handily the claim that science has proven Darwinism, and therefore it is true, and that creationism is therefore resoundingly disproven. Johnson reveals that science is not as objective as its adherents would like to think. His arguments can be useful in exposing the insufficiency and inconsistency of using science as an ultimate standard. 7 Van Til argues that this is the best argument for Christian theism, to show the unbeliever that Even non- Christians presuppose its truth while they verbally reject it. (2003, 134)
Apologetic Method 9 inconsistent normative standard is caused by and evidences his rebellion toward God. The unbeliever is wrong because he does not know how he ought 8 to know. Apologetics and Evidence Therefore, the apologist is able to make use of all types of evidence and argument provided that it is valid according to the criteria of Scripture and done in submission to God as Lord. For example, the Paley s classic teleological argument can certainly be used to show that the evidence of design reveals the personal Creator of Scripture. Similarly, so long as the cosmological and ontological arguments are used to argue for the God of the Bible, they are valid. As Van Til asserts (2003, 134), these traditional arguments even presuppose the truth of the Bible, although the skeptic ignores this. Arguments for the historicity of the Bible and Jesus s resurrection should be embraced as well. All true statements can be useful in one s apologetic since all was made by God and is held together in Christ and reveals God in so conclusive a way that all of humanity is without excuse in the face of this evidence (Colossians 1:15-17; Romans 1:18-20). All evidence, when rightly understood, will reveal the God of the Bible and the truth of a biblical Christian worldview. There are some limitations to argumentations from evidence however. As we have repeatedly seen, the unbeliever s root problem is not a lack of knowledge, but an unwillingness to submit to that which is already known (In a Romans 1:18-21 sense). Therefore, no amount of argumentation, no matter how valid and lucid is sufficient to compel the non-christian into the kingdom (Habermas, 2000, 96) if it is considered apart from submission to God. Satan knows 8 Ought is an ethical term. The presence of ethics as a standard presupposes the personal, absolute God of the Bible (see Frame, 1994, 52 and 93-101).
Apologetic Method 10 plenty of propositions about God; he just does not know them obediently; he is therefore the embodiment of irrationality (Frame, 2006, 101). Similarly, the non-christian knows God; he just does not know Him obediently (Frame, 1987, 44-45 and 58). Evaluating evidence for God or the Bible creates a very real danger of communicating to the apologist and skeptic that they are neutral, autonomous judges presiding over God and His Word 9. Reason and empiricism, we have seen, are not valid ultimate criteria for truth; the apologist must avoid reinforcing the misconception that they are. Habermas claims (2000, 115-116) that the apologist is to meet critics on their own (common) ground, using their presuppositions and their methodology. This is a losing proposition from the start as their presuppositions deny God; to act as if God is able to be known by these presuppositions is to reinforce in the skeptic that neutral reasoning is possible or that autonomous reasoning is acceptable. A proper apologetic must express the truth about God, that He is Creator, Lord of heaven and earth, Judge, and Savior (Frame, 2000, 220). Apologetics and the Individual Not all those who ask a reason are asking for the same reasons or with the same prejudices and presuppositions. The loving, gentle, patient, and humble apologist will take the time to listen to the skeptic, recognizing that the only difference between himself and the unbeliever is God s regenerating and sanctifying grace. Apologetics must be flexible enough in form and content to be person-variable (Mavrodes, 1970, 42; Frame, 2000, 222), recognizing some differences among unbelievers objections, concerns, education level, experience, and hardness of heart. The 9 Take Butler s statement (1824, 252) for example, the epitome of what should be avoided as the evidence is considered: Let reason be kept to: and if any part of the Scripture account of the redemption of the world by Christ can be shown to be contrary to it, let the Scripture, in the name of God be given up.
Apologetic Method 11 loving apologist will apply Scripture appropriately to each individual s particular unbelief. Schaeffer writes (1983, Appendix A), If we are to deal with people where they are we have got to have enough genuine love for them that we would take seriously what they are preoccupied with 10. We tend to give a person a prepackaged answer instead of having the compassion of Christ If people do not have modern intellectual questions, there is no need of dealing with such questions. The apologist might never speak of presuppositions; he might not present theistic proofs or historical evidences for the resurrection of Christ; he may simply preach the gospel; or he could do all of these. Of utmost importance is that in all of these things the apologist is submitting himself to God as Lord 11 both in his demeanor and in his reasoning as he obediently pleads with the skeptic as an ambassador of Christ to be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:18-21). The skeptic s biggest problem is not that he does not know enough facts or has not thoroughly considered the evidence. Rather, he has suppressed the knowledge of God he already has and is living at enmity with him. Whatever specifics are used in the discussion, the apologist must argue with gospel in mind and faith as the goal. 10 Schaeffer gives an example in a preceding paragraph of the necessity of this concern from preoccupation of the unbeliever: [I]f I were with Paul and Silas in the Philippian jail, and the Philippian jailer said to me, Sir, what must I do to be saved? for me to start talking about epistemology would be horrible. I would say what Paul said: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, because the jailer was, on the basis of previous knowledge and events, ready for that answer. 11 This is what Frame (1994, 85-88) calls a presuppositionalism of the heart. Presuppositional apologetics is not distinguishable from traditional methods primarily by form but by the attitude of the apologist s heart.
Apologetic Method 12 Bibliography Butler, Joseph, The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed to the Constitution and Course of Nature. Google Books. London: C. & J. Rivington, 1824. http://books.google.com. Cowan, Steven, ed. Five Views on Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000. Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian faith and apologetics. Edited by John S. Feinberg and Leonard Goss. 3rd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. Frame, John. Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1994.. The Doctrine of God: A Theology of Lordship. electronic ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2002. CD-ROM.. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God: A Theology of Lordship. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1987. CD-ROM.. "Presuppositional Apologetics" In Cowan, Five Views on Apologetics, 208-231. Salvation Belong to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2006. CD-ROM. Habermas, Gary. "Evidential Apologetics" In Cowan, Five Views on Apologetics, 92-121 Johnson, Philip. Darwin on Trial. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993.
Apologetic Method 13 Mavrodes, George. Belief in God: A Study in the Epistemology of Religion. New York: Random House, 1970. Schaeffer, Francis. The God Who Is There in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1983. CD-ROM. The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Standard Bible Society, 2001. Van Til, Cornelius. A Survey of Christian Epistemology, in The Works of Cornelius Van Til, ed. Eric H. Sigward. Jackson Heights, NY: Labels Army Company. 1997. CD-ROM.. Christian Apologetics. 2nd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1976. CD-ROM. Whitcomb, John Jr. "Contemporary Apologetics and the Christian Faith: Proof Texts for Semi-Rationalistic Apologetics." Bibliotheca Sacra (Dallas Theological Seminary). 134. electronic ed. (October 1977): 291-298.