There is value in giving Christians reasons to believe. That is, having believed because God has opened our hearts, it can be helpful -- fortifying -- to be given reasons, arguments, evidence, points of fact that build up that faith and help hold it strong. But today's Apologetics seems largely to be aimed at the non-Christian, and much of what is being said out there suggests that if we don't have a strong (and often extra-biblical) argument for Christianity, we won't be able to reach people. I find myself wondering what Paul would think of that.
First we know that Paul holds that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17). Apparently faith is not premised on good arguments, but the Word. But Paul has a lot to say about the wisdom of the world in this context. He assures us that "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18). Hmmm, not wisdom, but folly. He actually revels in the fact that "not many of you were wise according to worldly standards" (1 Cor 1:26), but, instead, "God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise" (1 Cor 1:27). I don't know. It doesn't sound a lot like Paul is encouraging using the wisdom of our surroundings to convince unbelievers.
Paul gets more pointed in the next chapter of 1 Corinthians. "My speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power," Paul tells the Corinthians, "that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God" (1 Cor 2:4-5). Instead, "we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit" (1 Cor 2:13). Indeed, "we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God" (1 Cor 2:7). Now, in truth, that kind of thing is anathema in the arena in which Apologetics is used as a witnessing tool. Suggesting "secret wisdom" is not going to gain you points in a logical debate. But that's Paul's claim. And he tells why. First, "These things God has revealed to us through the Spirit" (1 Co 2:10). It takes the Spirit to reveal the truth of the Gospel. And that would be fine, except for the second problem: "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). It doesn't really sound at all like Paul believes that we can produce sufficient reasoning skills to argue people into the kingdom of God. It sounds, instead, as if Paul is saying that Natural Man cannot receive the truths of God. That requires a fundamental change, and that fundamental change ("the mind of Christ" -- 1 Cor 2:16) is not brought about by clever arguments or coherent reasoning.
One last thought from Paul on this:
For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness," and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile" (1 Cor 3:19-20).Say what you want, but I don't think Paul placed a premium on the world's extrabiblical reasoning to accomplish God's work. In fact, it doesn't look like God does, either.
Now, I know that God uses all sorts of means to accomplish His ends. I know that in some cases God has used cogent arguments to prick the hearts of individuals to open their eyes to the truth. I am not saying that we should abandon reason and jettison a rational defense of the faith. But it would seem from Scripture that receiving the truth about Christ, about salvation, about those things that make up the Gospel and Christianity is a matter of the Word from our end and the Spirit from God's end. We are not overcoming faulty thinking. We have to overcome the dead spirit of Natural Man. A clean argument won't do that. God appears to want prayer and the Word from us for that. We ought to give God what He wants.
16 comments:
Well, Apologetics, from the 1 Peter passage, isn't about converting people, but about defending your own faith. It is a defensive tool, not offensive. It is about giving a reason for your own faith, not trying to give others a reason for theirs.
"But today's Apologetics seems largely to be aimed at the non-Christian"
Isn't that the point? We don't need to defend the faith to those who already have faith...do we? I understand the benefit of a Christian understanding and being involved in apologetics, but they should indeed be aimed at the non-Christian right?
I hear this charge a lot about this mysterious group of Christian apologists that believe "extra-biblical" arguments need to be the strongest (or primary), but can rarely actually find out who these people are. Nor can I usually find out which specific arguments are being referred to. Do you find this "extra-biblical" argument position to be the general case, or that it's the very rare exception to the rule?
For clarity's sake, would you consider any argument that does not explicitly quote scripture considered "extra-biblical"?
What about an argument that does not explicitly quote scripture, but is informed by Scripture? For example, would you consider the KCA an extra-biblical argument, despite that fact that it is inferred and informed by Genesis 1?
I'm curious because I hear this accusation thrown out a lot and have never seen an actual example. I'm beginning to think it's an strawman (or an imagined boogieman).
Do you have any quotes, or citations from such people?
I read this over a few times and realize that it can possibly sound snarky or sarcastic, please read it charitably, sarcasm is not my intention. Thanks in advance!
Anonymous,
It's not a strawman. I hear it from a variety of sources. The most common is a blog I actually read and enjoy -- Wintery Knight. (I link to it on my front page.) He insists that arguing for Christianity using the Bible with those who do not believe the Bible is pointless. His closest followers concur. The Bible, on the other hand, repeatedly says that there is power in God's Word, that human reasoning doesn't arrive on its own at the Gospel, and that God confers faith, not proper argumentation.
Faith wavers. Bolstering the faith of believers for that reason is helpful and suitable. Beyond that, there is in all of us a sense of "I believe that" without knowing why "I believe that" (and it's in a variety of areas, not just Christianity). Giving the "why" is helpful and solidifies what is already present.
Oh, and an argument from Scripture is not the same as an argument with which Scripture agrees or that is inferred from Scripture. My point is that the Bible (and God) indicates that there is power in the Word. Not human logic. Not careful reasoning. Faith doesn't come by proper argumentation, but by hearing the Word of God. Thus, the KCA is a valid reasoning, but not from Scripture. That is, it doesn't include Scripture. Rational argumentation isn't bad, but it doesn't produce faith according to the Bible. It's a good tool to have, but not the bottom line, God-prescribed mode of operation.
But you tell me. If faith comes from hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:17), is an argument that is inferred by the Word without reference to the Word the same thing as "hearing the Word of God"?
Actually, defending the faith has an offensive as well as defensive component.
When we as Christians are mocked for our faith, we need to be able to defend it rationally. We also need to be able to defend the true Christian faith from the cults and various false teachings, and this often takes an offensive approach.s
Preaching the Gospel is actually an offensive apologetic - taking the faith out to the people in evangelism. That is another example of "aiming" apologetics at the non-Christian.
Apologetics is also teaching a worldview and defending it against those who decry it.
I actually posted a citation on my blog yesterday, answering the question, "Why Apologetics?"
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-apologetics.html
A good friend wrote a piece for my blog a couple years ago which also is germane:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2011/08/apologetics-in-christian-worldview.html
Defending the faith by using the Bible is good.
As to your comments about WK, that's very interesting. In fact, that's an astonishing statement from someone who considers themselves a Christian apologist. Do you have a reference link or two? If that is the case, I formally withdraw my strawman implication. Do you understand this to be a formal position of any major apologists?
Let me state up front that I fully agree that apologetics should be based on the Word of God, but I'm not convinced that the Word of God necessarily equals direct Scripture quote. It seems to all boil down to your answer to this question, "Can the Word of God be accurately conveyed without a Scripture quote?" If a person presents the Gospel without direct quotes is it your position that a person has not presented the Word of God? Because if so, many tribal missionaries are in serious trouble...
I agree with your statement about faith wavering. I also feel that Christians (all of them) should have a certain level of involvement in apologetics. I was primarily commenting on what I perceived to be shock on your part that apologetics was "aimed at the non-Christian" (because it should be), but this is minor point largely off topic.
Oh, and an argument from Scripture is not the same as an argument with which Scripture agrees or that is inferred from Scripture.
It seems to me that the only difference here are the motivations of the apologist. It seems like you are presupposing Apologist A in the following scenario:
Apologist A uses the KCA because he/she believes it's the best argument... and Scripture happens to agree. (An agreement with which Scripture happens to agree)
Apologist B uses the KCA because Genesis 1 teaches it. (He/she understands the KCA to be the Word of God communicated in Genesis 1, and as a result uses the argument).
My point is that the Bible (and God) indicates that there is power in the Word. Not human logic. Not careful reasoning. Faith doesn't come by proper argumentation, but by hearing the Word of God. Thus, the KCA is a valid reasoning, but not from Scripture. That is, it doesn't include Scripture. Rational argumentation isn't bad, but it doesn't produce faith according to the Bible. It's a good tool to have, but not the bottom line, God-prescribed mode of operation.
Interesting point. I don't think anybody that reads their Bible accurately and in context can deny that it says there is power in the Word. My question to you is, can the Word be conveyed without a Scripture quote? If I present an argument, such as the KCA, which is based on Genesis 1, is it your position that it not an argument based from Scripture unless I preface with or add a direct Genesis 1 quote at the end?
But you tell me. If faith comes from hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:17), is an argument that is inferred by the Word without reference to the Word the same thing as "hearing the Word of God"?
The answer to this question depends on your answer above. Can a person present the Word of God without a direct Scripture quote? I think so. When we read Paul's actual defenses (Mars Hill, Agrippa) it looks like he provides many summarized arguments based on Scripture...not direct quotes. Would you agree?
I looked for one of the specific statements. I didn't find them. Most of them were in specific dialogs where Knight suggested that arguing from the Bible with those who don't believe in the Bible was pointless. I specifically asked him exactly the content of this post and he disagreed. But, since I can't find the specific dialog in question, you'll just have to assume I'm a liar and move on, thanks. He took that position. Several others took the same position in the conversation. Believe me or don't.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is as follows:
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
This is a logical argument. That Genesis 1 agrees by stating that God created the universe is not the same as saying that this argument is from the Word of God or that it is the Word of God. That is, neither of the premises are found in Scripture. Only the conclusion. It's not a "biblical argument".
Here, let's try this. I tell you that everyone -- all humans -- have violated God's decrees. Some small, some large, but everyone. This puts everyone at risk from God's justice. God, in His mercy, has provided an answer to this rather large problem. He provided, in His Son, the payment for these transgressions. Now, in order to be right with God, all you need to do is trust His Son as the payment for your transgressions.
In this example, I didn't quote Scripture. On the other hand, I didn't provide a carefully crafted, worldly-wise, philosophical argument. I would classify the example as a biblical argument because it is taken from the Bible, and I would not classify the KCA as a biblical argument because it is not taken from the Bible. I would not classify the KCA as a bad argument, but I wouldn't classify it as a biblical argument. Further, proving the existence of God to those who are, by nature, hostile to God (Rom 8:5-8) seems kind of ... pointless.
But I think you're missing the bottom line -- my primary point. I think that rational arguments are fine. Paul used them in Athens (without success, by the way). I think they can produce questions, create cracks in armor, that kind of thing. But they cannot produce faith. As I said, they are nice tools to have on hand, but they are not the biblical source of changed hearts. The real point I'm making is are you trusting in A) your careful reasoning, or are you trusting in B) God's work and especially through God's Word. If not B, you have to explain how you do so in light of the Scriptures I offered. That is my primary point.
Nobody is calling you a liar, calm down. I actually thought I had read the same thing on one of WK's "WLC praise posts" roughly a year ago, but I couldn't verify it, therefore I was asking if you could (only because I like specifics and direct quotes). I'm pretty sure that I saw it myself. I believe you.
Yes, the KCA is a logical argument, and so is the argument (or Gospel) you provided. Your example was certainly rational, logical, carefully crafted, and philosophical. You keep repeating that the KCA is not taken from the Bible, but I say it is, on this we may have to simply agree to disagree. Although I find it strange that you agree that the conclusion *is* found in Scripture and then state "It's not a biblical argument". That's astonishing to me. If you are willing, you may want to reconsider your position about that.
Further, proving the existence of God to those who are, by nature, hostile to God (Rom 8:5-8) seems kind of ... pointless.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat? We absolutely are supposed to prove the existence of God (among other things, including a Gospel presentation) to those that are hostile. The hostile people are the very ones who we are called to preach to! It's not pointless at all. Please be careful with such statements.
Paul used them in Athens (without success, by the way).
You cannot demonstrate that Paul was not successful in the Mars Hill account from Scripture. Scripture is silent other than the initial response, which was that some ridiculed and others wanted to hear more. Scripture does not reveal what actually happened with those that wanted to hear more (they may have wanted to hear more because they were successfully converted).
But they [rational arguments] cannot produce faith.
A "biblical argument" cannot produce faith either. Faith is a gift from God. Our arguments don't produce it.
As I said, they are nice tools to have on hand, but they are not the biblical source of changed hearts.
Correct. The only biblical source of changed hearts is the regeneration by the Holy Spirit, not arguments whether they are Biblical or non-Biblical.
The real point I'm making is are you trusting in A) your careful reasoning, or are you trusting in B) God's work and especially through God's Word. If not B, you have to explain how you do so in light of the Scriptures I offered. That is my primary point.
False Dilemma, I can and do trust in both (as did Paul), I trust B primarily and A secondarily.
I've said my peace. Thanks for the convo, and I hope I didn't upset you, because that was not my intention. We are on the same team.
I am not/was not upset. I was out of options. "Prove it or else" leaves few options. But proving it wasn't my point, so I gave you the option to believe me or not.
I'm not talking about logical arguments. I am quite convinced that the Bible makes sense. I don't find it illogical. Thus, in my vernacular, a "biblical argument" is a logical argument, but with the added bonus of being true and empowered supernaturally by God. You won't find in the Bible the premise "Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence." That's a logical, philosophical argument, but not sourced by the Bible. The Bible does confirm that the universe has a cause (and specifies further that the cause is God), but doesn't go through, even in rough form, the syllogism of the KCA. Thus, the KCA is a logical, philosophical argument, but not a biblical argument.
What I said about proving the existence of God to hostiles primarily references Romans 1. There are no atheists, only those who claim it. There are, on the other hand, a whole lot of people who believe in God and are hostile to Him. Proving He exists does little to assuage that hostility. Of course we are to preach to the hostiles. But preaching a logical argument and preaching the Word are different primarily in that the Word has power that mere logic does not.
I hope you don't go away miffed or offended. I think we're not too far apart, actually. You place a little more weight on logic and I place a little more weight on the Word of God, but not too far apart. Both are relying on God to do the work, not my use of the Word or your use of reason. So, "what then? Only that in every way, whether in [logical argument] or in [biblical argument], Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice" (Phil 1:18 ... slightly modified).
I am not offended and I am glad you were not upset! Because I have enjoyed the exchange thus far. Text is a very challenging medium to convey tone and intention and I agree with your assessment that we're probably not that far off. I've been reading your blog for years, and we are in lock step on the overwhelming majority of your posts. I, like you, suspect that our difference is very nuanced. If we were real life buds, we'd be on the phone right now ironing out the details and I'm pretty sure I could convince you the KCA is biblical, but alas. :)
You won't find in the Bible the premise "Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence." That's a logical, philosophical argument, but not sourced by the Bible.
Are you sure about that? Because that premise you said is not sourced sounds pretty darn close to, "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." - John 1:3 (ESV). I would argue that the premise is a restatement of John 1:3.
Explaining your vernacular does shed a bit more light on exactly where the area of disagreement is. My position is, "The KCA is a Biblical argument derived from Scripture."
Your position seems to be as follows (and please correct me if I'm wrong), "The KCA conclusion is indeed a biblical conclusion, however because it is supported with premises, then argument is no longer biblical." In other words, you would be forced to say that if a person were to merely assert, "The universe has a cause" then that would be biblical, but by contaminating the conclusion with "cooties" (premises), the argument is no longer biblical. If so, I think that's being arbitrary. If my summary is correct, then I think we have found the point that we are actually disagreeing on.
You place a little more weight on logic and I place a little more weight on the Word of God, but not too far apart. Both are relying on God to do the work, not my use of the Word or your use of reason.
Hmmmm, if you believe this to be the case, then you misunderstand my position. If you remember my earlier example, I am Apologist B, not A. My position is that the Word of God, by necessity and by definition, entails reason and that they are inseparable. I believe the KCA is a biblical argument and that the premise you identified as non-biblical is indeed biblical (as I pointed out above).
As I said, the Bible supports the conclusion, including your John reference. It says He made everything that was made. But the premises are not derived from anything biblical.
You speak of "premises" as if I think of them as bad. If so, I have, once again, failed to communicate. If you have read what I've been writing for as long as you indicate, I'm in favor of logic, reason, "premises" (no cooties). I like them; I use them. Remember that I'm speaking here of defending the faith to unbelievers, not believers. I like and use the KCA, but do not consider it a valuable means of giving the Gospel to unbelievers who need it.
When I say that the KCA is not a biblical argument, I mean that the premises are not found in Scripture. In my earlier example of sharing the Gospel, all the premises were from Scripture even though I didn't quote any verses. That would be using the Word. Agreeing with the conclusion that God made everything that is is not the same as asserting that everything that started has a cause. In fact, as we both know, the Bible assumes that God exists and created everything that is without arguments in favor of such a belief.
You misunderstood what I meant about weight on logic or Scripture. I meant comparatively, between you and me, not generally. You place more weight on logic to defend the faith to unbelievers than I do. That was all.
You argue that the premises of the KCA are biblical. The references you offered, however, only indicate the conclusion. Given the premise, "Everything that has a beginning has a cause", what reference(s) would you point to that would make that type of assertion? I see it logically and philosophically, but I don't see anything in the Bible from which I could derive it. You do?
But, at the end of the day, you think the KCA is "biblical" (in whatever sense you might mean it) and I hold that there is power in the Word of God that simple logical argumentation and philosophical reasoning do not, biblically, possess. Since you are arguing that the KCA is biblical, then we're in agreement, aren't we?
As I said, the Bible supports the conclusion, including your John reference. It says He made everything that was made. But the premises are not derived from anything biblical.
Re-read my second paragraph above. My position is that even the premises are derived from Scripture. Afterward, see my example below.
When I say that the KCA is not a biblical argument, I mean that the premises are not found in Scripture.
See below.
You misunderstood what I meant about weight on logic or Scripture. I meant comparatively, between you and me, not generally. You place more weight on logic to defend the faith to unbelievers than I do. That was all.
I understand what you're saying, my point is that your statement is incorrect. I'm saying is that the Word of God *IS* logical. Therefore, using a biblical argument *IS* using logic. It's inescapable. I'm saying that because of this we actually put the same weight on logic. The problem is that you're trying to separate the Word of God from logic. I'm saying you can't do it.
You argue that the premises of the KCA are biblical.
Yes.
The references you offered, however, only indicate the conclusion.
Incorrect. John 1:3 supports the premise. Hopefully my illustration below makes it clear.
I like and use the KCA, but do not consider it a valuable means of giving the Gospel to unbelievers who need it.
Amen. The KCA is not the Gospel.
Here's how I see it:
Premise #1: Everything [All things] that has a beginning of its existence [that were made] has a cause of its existence [were made through Him]; = John 1:3 (What is done here is equivilant to your Gospel illustration.)
Premise #2: The universe has a beginning of its existence; = Genesis 1
Conclusion: The universe has a cause of its existence. = Genesis 1
Since you are arguing that the KCA is biblical, then we're in agreement, aren't we?
YES! This is exactly the point I've been trying to make, you stated it perfectly. Our disagreement is NOT about using biblical arguments over philosophical ones, we agree completely on this and about the power in the Word, our disagreement boils down to whether the KCA itself is biblical. You say no, I say yes.
Just curious. The original premise was that we need to use Scripture to defend the faith to unbelievers, that there is power in the Word and not merely human logic on its own. In the final analysis, here, you appear to end up agreeing with me. So ... what was the disagreement? (I mean beyond whether or not Argument A was in the Bible.)
We've always agreed on your central premise. We got side tracked a bit because I asked for clarification on your position about the KCA. At which time I was promptly informed that I placed non-biblical arguments over the Word. ;)
I think we're at a good place now, felt it was a fruitful discussion!
Until next time...
Hey, Anonymous, if you're still out there, here's what WK said today:
"If Piper’s goal is to DO GOOD at a practical level, then he has to use public square arguments that are convincing to people who do not accept a very very conservative view of the Bible."
Ergo, "No, you cannot use the Bible when defending the faith with people who do not accept the Bible as truth."
Yes, I did see that the other day. I laughed at the timing...
Post a Comment