I've read some lately (not mentioning any names) from those who would argue that Christians need to base their arguments on science and the like. "Set the Bible aside when talking to skeptics," they argue, "because they don't accept the Bible." In a vacuum, that makes sense, but we don't live in a vacuum. We live in a world inundated with God. And God says that His Word is key (Rom 10:17). In that sense, it is a deist approach to ignore the Word in favor of extrabiblical arguments.
I am not, however, primarily concerned here about the discarding of the Word in the defense of the faith. What concerns me most is the question, "Where do you stand?" I'm not wondering about the place you stand, but the basis. Where is your footing, your substance, the solid ground? The hardcore apologist who wants to defend the faith with science and archaeology and history and all is standing firmly on science and archaeology and history and all. My question is, "Is that a safe place to stand?"
Here, let's ask this from another direction. I've heard many times when science has gloated, "We have archaeological/historical/geological/whatever-scientific-field-you-wish evidence that proves that the Bible is wrong on this point" and then that particular field will have a breakthrough that shows that their position was wrong and, lo and behold, the Bible was right! Oh, how we rejoice, don't we? We throw that up on our Christian blogs and Christian headlines and tout the fact that science agrees with Scripture and we feel warm and vindicated. That's nice. But the question is do you feel cold and threatened when science does not agree? If science says that "your Bible can't be right because here's the evidence and proof and experimental data and all and clearly the Bible is wrong", do you question the Bible? You see, using science to prove your point but ignoring it when it doesn't isn't consistent, fair, or rational. If your basis is human thinking and human study and human examinations, then when these processes deny Christ and the Bible, you are obligated to do the same1.
That's why I ask you where you stand. Are you standing on the Word? Are you standing on God's firm footing? Or are you standing on the world and its thinking? I would guess that many are trying to do both. And this isn't possible, you see, because of what the Bible says about the world. Paul said that the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God (Rom 8:7), so why would you expect anything but hostility? The Bible says that they are blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4), so why would you expect enlightenment? James warns that "whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God" (James 4:4), so why would we want to make ourselves friends with the world? Paul warns that the gospel is "folly to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18), so why would we expect Man's archaeological/historical/geological/whatever-scientific-field-you-wish evidence to agree with God?
That's my question, then. You see, a worldview based on God's Word will be radically different than the standard worldview. It will choose God's Word over science. It will defer to Scripture over experience. It will prefer God over everything. And archaeological/historical/geological/whatever-scientific-field-you-wish will not. So where are you standing? Are you standing on His Word, or are you counting on the world around us to back God up? I'd suggest the latter is a dangerous place to stand.
________
1 I try to base my worldview on Scripture. Thus, when this happens for me -- when science trips itself up and agrees with the Bible -- I say, "Well, now, isn't that nice? However, I wasn't counting on science to confirm what I already knew to be true from Scripture." Extrabiblical evidence is fine; I'm just asking about the basis of belief.
5 comments:
One of the first steps in convincing a skeptic needs to be demonstrating that the Bible is a valid foundation. Once you get yourself there, there's no better place to stand but, you've got to be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for the hope that is in you. Saying that "the Bible says so" isn't a very pursuasive argument. There are pursuasive arguments that can be made to someone on a different platform.
I've just recently begun looking (again) at "apologetics".
It's interesting to me. The Bible tells us to be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15), but it doesn't say "Be persuasive" or "Try to convince them." When someone asks me why I believe what I believe (which is "the reason for the hope that is in you"), I say, "Because this is what I read in my Bible." Now, I can bolster that position with other facts and other evidence, and I can explain, "Look, I'm a Christian, so I'm stuck with a Christian worldview. I can either stop being a Christian or I can retain that worldview, but I cannot both be a Christian and substitute a different worldview", but my bottom line is "This is what it says, so this is what I believe." (Hopefully with a bit more explanation, exegesis, etc.)
I know I'm not in a majority in the Apologetics field, but it isn't my understanding that it's my job to persuade anyone. Indeed, I believe, given the sin nature, the hostility toward God, the inability to understand spiritual things -- all that goes into Natural Man (according to Scripture -- that I cannot persuade. So I give the best reasons I have and let God do the persuading. Naive? Perhaps, but it's the best I have with my particular biblical worldview.
An anecdotal side note. Another Christian and I worked with an atheist whose joy in life was arguing with Creationists. When he found out my coworker was one, he was prepared. "So," he warmed up, "why do you believe that God created the world instead of the theory of Evolution?" You could almost see him licking his lips with a taste for Creationist blood.
My friend said quietly, "Well, my Bible says that God created the world, so that's what I believe."
"Oh," our skeptical coworker said, blinking in surprise. "Well, I guess I can see that." And he was done. He had no argument against it.
I am cautious about discounting the power of God and the power of God's Word in favor of "persuasive arguments" from a world perspective.
I look to Paul's example of reasoning with people as an indication that reasoning has a place in evangelism.
It looks like your comment about "the sin nature" is referring to Calvinism. Is it?
Using reason to support Scripture is perfectly suitable, but even Paul failed (in Athens) to persuade with reason. The real question I've asked is the basis. Is it reason and evidence, or is it God's Word? Do I believe the truth because reason and evidence show it and the Bible supports it, or because the Bible says it and reason and evidence support that?
On the sin nature, you might call it Calvinism. I call it Scripture. Allow me:
"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom 8:7).
"The Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14).
Those are the two I mentioned, and then said, "all that goes into Natural Man", so that would include things like "dead in sin" (Eph 2:1), "blinded by the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4), "intent on evil from childhood" (Gen 8:21), and "slave to sin" (John 8:34). Some like to call that "Calvinism"; I prefer "biblicism" because, after all, I got it out of the Bible.
Post a Comment