The Resurrection is the Only Explanation for Christianity

The Resurrection is the Only Explanation for Christianity

Apr 8, 2023 | Apologetics

This weekend we celebrate what we’ve come to call Easter, but what is in fact the celebration of the death and resurrection of the Savior of the world, who has been saving His people from their sin (Matt. 1:21) since he rose from the dead. When we come to that claim we have two options: either it is true, or it is not. If it is true, it is the most important historical fact in all of history, and we ought to treat it that way. If it is not, then it is completely irrelevant and should be ignored. It’s just fiction, something conjured up by mere human imagination, and in effect a lie. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to base my entire life on a lie. So I want to lay out here some brief arguments why I believe it is in fact true, and why you should too.

Something has to explain the rise of Christianity. Unserious people can blow it off as, whatever, but something that has transformed the world in the way it has needs to be explained. Tom Holland lays out the transformational influence of Christianity in his wonderful book, Dominion, as the only thing that can explain the modern world. However, Holland has not yet embraced Christianity as Truth, and therefore believes this transformational influence was the result of a lie. Of course he wouldn’t say that, I presume, and might wiggle out of his dilemma by saying, well, Jesus didn’t really, literally, physically come back to life after being brutally tortured to death on a Roman cross, but his followers maybe thought he did, they believed it, and that is what changed the world. That’s laughable and absurd, but many people still believe it.

1. Jews don’t make up the resurrection – First, Jews in the first century do not make up a resurrection in the middle of history. That was literally inconceivable to them, both theologically and eschatologically. There was only one general resurrection of the dead at the end of time when sin and death would be dealt with once for all (see Martha’s response to Jesus at Lazarus tomb in John 11). That one man in the middle of history would be resurrected from the dead, and sin and death go on as they always have was to them ridiculous. It would have made no sense. People do not make up what is inconceivable to them.

2. The fearless and bold proclomation of the resurrection – There is also the fact that the Apostles proclaimed Jesus’ physical, bodily resurrection from the beginning at the threat of their safety and lives, and argued for the truth of Christianity based on it. Here is Paul’s declaration of the historicity of the event in I Corinthians 15:

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Doesn’t much sound like a fairy tale to me, or just a “spiritual” experience. They ate with the risen Jesus and touched him. When Doubting Thomas finally encountered the risen Lord he declared, “My Lord and my God!

3. The Jewish religion transformed – An actual physical, bodily resurrection is the only thing that could have gotten first century Jews to alter their beliefs in such a fundamental fashion. Jews only believed in physical, bodily resurrections, not “spiritual ones.” Mere religious experiences don’t have the power to do what happened to those first Jewish followers of Jesus. The immediate, drastic changes in their religious convictions can only be explained by the resurrection, and Jesus proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

J.P. Moreland says anyone “who denies the resurrection owes us an explanation of this transformation which does justice to the historical facts.” Skeptics don’t like these historical facts because, well, resurrections can’t happen! Let’s confuse them with these facts they have no ability to explain apart from the supernatural. According to Moreland, the first Christians, strict Jews all, immediately gave up these Jewish convictions that defined everything about their religion:

  1. The sacrificial system.
  2. The importance of keeping the law.
  3. Keeping of the Sabbath.
  4. Non-Trinitarian theism.
  5. A human Messiah.

The skeptic says, “Yeah, so what. No big deal; happens every day of the week.” Well, if it does, I’m waiting for concrete evidence. Instead, we generally get anti-supernatural bias disguised as above-it-all, supposedly objective assertions with little basis in historical fact. As Moreland says in a bit of understatement, “The resurrection offers the only rational explanation.”

4. Altnernet explanations of the resurrection fail – Honest non-Christian scholars agree that some explanation is required to explain the explosive rise of Christianity. Almost all scholars and historians today believe the tomb was empty, but also agree an empty tomb is not enough to explain the explosive growth, and I would add, against all odds. They had everything against them, the entire Jewish establishment, the power of the Roman Empire, and initially very small numbers. What they did have, though, was the truth and the Holy Spirit. Those two things transform the world, lies do not.

The only options to an actual physical resurrection are a stolen body, or the swoon theory (he really didn’t die), or Jesus’ disciples thought they saw Jesus as mentioned above. These appearances of Jesus, while not real, had the effect as if they were real, and boom—Christianity exploded! German higher critics of the 19th century, and liberal Christians of the early 20th, were fond of arguing for this spiritual Jesus somehow appearing, and the disciples having what they called a “resurrection experience.” The historicity of the event was beside the point; and we all “know” people don’t come back from the dead, especially after the Romans got done with them. Jesus’ followers were so distraught, the argument goes, and so longing for the crucified Messiah to come back to them somehow, their minds conjured up a Jesus who came back from the dead. Then, because of this “spiritual” experience, they went throughout the Roman Empire proclaiming a resurrected Lord. The problem with this explanation however it was explained—by dreams, visions, or mass hallucinations—it all comes up against the same cold hard truth I mentioned above: For Jews, a resurrection of one man in the middle of history was inconceivable, as was a resurrection not bodily and physical.

As I argue in Uninvented, if someone comes to the text without a question-begging anti-supernatural bias, they will be able to see the verisimilitude in the resurrection account and all the events surrounding it. The gospels are all about Jesus’ death and resurrection because it is those events that happened in real space and time, in what we call history, and everything turns on whether they actually did or not happen. As I also argue in the book, the burden of proof is every bit on those who reject the resurrection and that it could have made up. My claim is that is not possible. Thus we declare this Easter Sunday the Year of our Lord 2023:

He is risen, He is risen indeed!

 

Take 3 on My Encounter with The Rationalist: Why I Believe the Evidence

Take 3 on My Encounter with The Rationalist: Why I Believe the Evidence

Mar 21, 2023 | Apologetics

In my previous post on my encounter with The Rationalist, I explained the nature of evidence and how it is used in a court of law as “proof” for conclusions to either convict a defendant or not. Everyone uses evidence in life in all kinds of ways that acts for them as “proof” for what they do or don’t do, believe or don’t believe. What evidence that leads to “proof” can never yield is absolute certainty, as I also discussed. I put the word proof in quotation marks because in a very real way proof is in the eyes of the beholder, and everyone at some point needs to trust the evidence and only then does it become proof for them. This fact of human existence is why I always insist on pointing out that everyone lives by faith, which I define as trust based on adequate evidence. I trust based on more than adequate evidence to me that Christianity is true.

As I said, whenever I mentioned a bit of evidence to The Rationalist, he rejected it as evidence. He would basically say, That’s not evidence! Says you, Mr. Materialist Atheist. He has what afflicts all such people: epistemological blindness. According to them, there is only one way to know and it’s their way or the highway. No thanks. So by what evidence do I embrace Christianity?

Before I get to that it’s important to preface it with knowing the importance of “the consideration of the alternative.” I talk about this in writing and conversation often, and it is something The Rationalist rejected because it didn’t serve his purpose. It states, if one thing isn’t true about something, another thing must be. This basic fact of reality cannot be escaped, so keep that in mind any time you consider pretty much anything, regarding Christianity or not. There is no neutrality in reality, only being in between decisions about what we choose to believe, or not. Not choosing is of course a choice.

In no particular order:

  • When I look outside every morning, I thank God for his revelation in creation. It takes entirely too much faith to believe everything came from nothing for no reason at all. Literally every nook and cranny of reality shouts of being the result of an infinite omniscient omnipresent Almighty Creator God!
  • Next, I thank God for his revelation in Scripture, and that also takes entirely too much faith to believe it is made up, mere human invention. In fact, I wrote an entire book about it! Every morning when I the Bible, I marvel that it even exists. I am continually amazed at how it shows evidence of a plan only a divine author could orchestrate. Even though written over 1500(!) years by 40 or so different authors in primarily two languages, it has a tight, coherent, and relentless theme from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 22:21 we call redemptive history. I see in it everywhere theological genius only a divine author could conceive.
  • Lastly, I thank God for his revelation in Christ, the most astounding revelation of all because it, He, makes sense of everything else in all of creation, all of Scripture, and in all of our experience living life in a fallen world among fallen people in a fallen body. I agree with ex-atheist C.S. Lewis who of course said it best: I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun rises, not because I see it but because by it I see everything else.

To get logical, these are deductive considerations, by which I mean I embrace the major premise, God exists. The minor premise is revelation is possible. Therefore, I am completely blown away! Some might see this as a presuppositional approach in that I assume something, God, and everything follows and makes sense because of that. There are also more inductive ways that I find extremely persuasive, meaning I find data and that leads me to a certain conclusion. There is mass quantities of such evidence. I am not sure where deduction and induction part ways, and have concluded they can’t be parted, as much as The Rationalist insists they must be. A list of such evidences would be very long indeed, so here is a small taste off the top of my head.

  • At the top of the list would have to be the resurrection. I do not believe the resurrection happened because the Bible says so, I believe it because the evidence is overwhelming, compelling, and solid. Most persuasive to me is the argument I make in Uninvented, that first century Jews would never, ever, in a million years make up a story of a Messiah being crucified, hung on a cross under God’s curse, buried, and rising from the dead. There is also an abundance of scholarly work on the historicity of the resurrection. One good example is a scholarly work by Mike Licona called, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. He has almost 60 pages of references in his bibliography, so there is no shortage of scholarly work on the topic.
  • I can also trust the Bible is historically reliable on several grounds. As someone has said, archaeology is the Bible’s best friend because the more that is discovered, the more it is confirmed as history. There are also secular external sources that corroborate much of the history we find in our New Testament, including Jewish historian Josephus, and Roman historian Tacitus. In addition, despite what the critics say, it is not written like myth or fairy tells, but like eyewitness testimony, and thus history. Lastly, I believe we can trust the textual transmission of the Bible gives us pretty much what was written in its pages, and there is also an abundance of scholarly work on this topic.
  • I also find philosophical arguments persuasive. Among these are Thomas’s Five Ways, or five arguments that prove God’s existence, among them what are known as the cosmological and teleological arguments. The moral argument is another especially powerful argument because morality, the human sense that right and wrong exist, and that injustice is wrong, can only be explained if an objective standard exists. We only know a line is crooked because we have a straight line to compare it to. Human consciousness is also something philosophers find impossible to explain from a purely material perspective. Philosopher Thomas Nagel wrote a book called Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Nagel, though, can’t bring himself to reject his atheism, so he’s kind of stuck and the book reflects that.
  • We can extend the philosophical arguments to goodness, beauty, and truth, the classical virtues that the ancient Greeks share with Christianity. The question is not whether these things exist, but why, and whether The Rationalist has any ground to justify their existence based on his materialist worldview. What better explains their existence, matter, since that’s all the materialist has, or the God who created this world with features that go beyond matter? All the explanatory power goes to Christianity, every single bit. It is also a far more plausible explanation.

There is much more, and the resources on any one of these are endless. When I dove back into apologetics in 2009 I was amazed at the explosion of resources available since I’d last engaged in this theological discipline in the ‘80s. There really is no excuse for Christians today to know not only what they believe, but also why they believe it.

 

Take Two on My Encounter with The Rationalist: Evidence

Take Two on My Encounter with The Rationalist: Evidence

Mar 15, 2023 | Apologetics

In a previous post I discussed my two-and-a-half-hour grilling at the hand of a quintessential rationalist. One thing especially stood out to me was how The Rationalist used evidence as a weapon against me by discounting anything that I claimed was evidence. Only what he counted as evidence was evidence. It’s a common tactic of atheists. The Rationalist, like most rationalists, is an empiricist, meaning only what is empirically demonstrably provable counts as “evidence.” Here is a definition of empiricism:

Empiricism, in philosophy, is the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience.

Key word: only. In the history of philosophy the rationalists and the empiricists often didn’t see eye to eye, and many saw these two approaches to epistemology as mutually exclusive. But that debate is for scholars who have too much time on their hands. In fact, most people who reject the existence of God are rationalist empiricists because they believe all knowledge does in some way only come through sense experience and that it can be rationally deduced as real knowledge, the only knowledge that is in fact real. However, nobody can be perfectly consistent in this because human beings are more than senses and reason, as I think The Rationalist demonstrated in our conversation.

Now let’s take a look at a definition of evidence:

Evidence is anything that can be used to prove something — like the evidence presented in a trial, or the trail of breadcrumbs that is evidence of the path Hansel took through the woods.

The word evidence is derived from the Latin ēvidēnt-, meaning “obvious.” The word evidence shows up frequently in legal documents and dramas, because evidence is necessary proof in linking someone to a crime or crime scene. Evidence is used in many ways to show that something is true, as in “the chocolate stains around your mouth and the crumbs on the table are evidence that you ate the last of the brownies.”

Given all human beings see things differently to some degree, what is obvious to some is not so obvious to others. Notice the phrase “necessary proof” in the definition above. Rarely does “proof” in a court of law equal absolute certainty. In fact, people are sent to prison when certainty is far from certain, and different crimes require different levels of “proof” to convict someone. There are also different levels of “proof” to convict someone in criminal verses civil trials. But, evidence, whatever that might be, is “necessary proof” in a court of law. In other words, it is reasonable to come to a conclusion based on that evidence.

The point, though, is that proof is never absolute, and anyone who thinks it is, in Paul’s words, does not yet know as he ought to know. Also, evidence can never compel someone to believe something against their will. Someone is either open to the evidence, or they are not. Even if they are willing to consider it, they may not be persuaded by it. The Rationalist, and those of his ilk, doesn’t seem to understand that, or more accurately, refuses to think evidence he doesn’t find persuasive as “necessary proof” is ipso facto not evidence! How convenient. This kind of person is deluded by the ghost of René Descartes, the founder of modern philosophy who brought the concept that absolute certainty was possible into Western thought. It’s not. Finite beings cannot be absolutely certain of anything, and if they think they are, they are living a delusion. Such people are often unpleasant to interact with because they are absolutely certain anyone who disagrees with them is absolutely wrong! And they are not shy in saying so.

Given I don’t have enough room in this post to get into what I see as evidence for the veracity of Christianity and why I embrace it, I will do that in another post, but I will mention something here called the cumulative case argument. The phrase explains itself. As evidence accumulates the argument for the case become more compelling until it becomes for certain people “proof” that the argument is true. Put another way, it is that multiple arguments or pieces of evidence come together to form a stronger conclusion. Rather than aiming to prove the conclusion with absolute certainty, the goal is to establish a conclusion that is more likely to be true than false. I would argue that for Christianity, the cumulative case for its being true rather than false is like a tsunami combined with an avalanche that turns into a Noah like flood. For me, it’s impossible to not believe it is true.

That doesn’t mean over the last four plus decades of being a Christian there were not times when I doubted whether it might not be true. Although, this is not exactly the case. I’ve never believed some alternative to Christianity might be true. If I were to believe that I would have to believe the cumulative case for whatever that view of reality was, was more compelling than the Christian faith. I’ve always known what I now call “the consideration of the alternative” must be embraced, meaning if Christianity isn’t true, something else has to be. What has waxed and waned over the decades for me is the plausibility of Christianity. At times it just didn’t seem as real as other times. I now look back at those times and call them times of plausibility insanity. What changed? My deep dive into apologetics in 2009.

I had an encounter with a co-worker that year trying to engage him about the truth of Christianity, and I was pathetic. It was embarrassing, although he wouldn’t have thought so. I determined that would never happen again. I had just purchased a car with an aux cable jack, got a small MP3 player, and started listening to apologetics podcasts. I was amazed to learn there had been an explosion of apologetics resources since I’d last studied this theological discipline in the 1980s. So listening and reading, and reading and listening, I was drinking deep of the cumulative case that yes in fact, Christianity is the truth! And that there was more than enough evidence to make the case that Jesus was indeed the risen Lord and Savior, Creator of the heavens and earth, and the reason for my existence. I will say it as I often say, quoting C.S. Lewis:

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not because I see it but because by it I see everything else.

I will do a third and final post in response to The Rationalist on some of the evidence that to me, makes the cumulative case and has convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that Christianity is true.

 

 

 

My Interesting Encounter with The Rationalist

My Interesting Encounter with The Rationalist

Mar 7, 2023 | Apologetics

>

I say The Rationalist not because there is one such person in the world, but because the person I encountered is the quintessential rationalist. There is a lot I want to unpack here and get off my chest so this may take several posts; we’ll see. Before I get to what a rationalist is, I will briefly explain the encounter.

I was recently on the Unbelievable? Podcast with Justin Brierly, and had an enjoyable discussion about Uninvented with an atheist, Matthew Taylor. I found out he has his own podcast, Still Unbelievable! and joked with Matthew after Justin stopped the recording that I expected an invite to be on their podcast, and he said he would do that. Lo and behold he was as good as his word. I was on recently for two and a half hours! He warned me that his co-host was not as accommodating as he is, or some such words, but I assured him I could handle it. I did, but it was grueling being interrogated by a rationalist atheist for that long. I’m sure his listeners were gleeful that yet another clueless Christian proved the superiority of their worldview. But I’m convinced he could have on C.S. Lewis come back from the dead, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, and J. Warner Wallace all at the same time, and The Rationalist would still feel superior to we poor benighted Christians.

First, I’ll explain what a rationalist is for those not familiar with the term. In 17th century intellectual circles skepticism was on the rise. René Descartes (1596-1650), a Catholic and generally considered the founder of modern philosophy, decided he would address the challenge. He is famous, or infamous depending on one’s point of view, for defending the faith by doubting everything that could be doubted. His goal was absolute certainty because he felt that was needed to counter the skeptics. He was convinced such certainty was possible and developed detailed rules for how to attain it. The first step was finding if there was anything he could not doubt.

He eventually concluded the only thing he could not doubt was his own thinking, thus concluding cogito ergo sum, or I think therefore I am. There is certainly something to that, but it is a very thin reed upon which to hang one’s epistemology, or how we come to know what we know. My interlocutor on the podcast seems to believe that reed is a mighty oak that encompasses the entire universe. In that I’m not exaggerating because reason for him is all you got. Rationalism, along with empiricism, that true knowledge is only available via the empirical method, rounded out the Enlightenment project of the scope of man’s possible knowledge. Eventually, metaphysics was completely rejected. With these tools it was assumed mankind could figure out the true nature of reality, and unlock all the mysteries of the universe. Good luck!

Although Enlightenment intellectuals allowed God along for the ride for a century or two, they eventually kicked Him off the bus and left Him on the side of the road to fend for Himself. They could do well enough on their own. Which gets me to my interlocutor. Both he and Matthew once embraced the Christian faith, and then rejected it. We call that nowadays a “deconversion.” Many who take this path find a kind of agnosticism because they realize having absolute certainty about the ultimate nature of things isn’t really possible, so they decide to live in the space of unknowing, or agnosticism. The Rationalist, on the other hand, believes in absolute certainty, and he is absolutely certain in his certainty! It’s amazing to see this displayed in another human being. The lack of humility and what I perceived as arrogance was unpleasant to endure. If it was just a conversation over a pint I would have quickly changed the subject to the trivial like sports or the weather and I’m sure he would have been a fine person to interact with, but being a guest on their podcast, I was kind of stuck.

And while I’m targeting rationalists in this post, don’t think they’re the only ones capable of the absolute certainty delusion. It’s a sinful human trait, and plenty of Christians are guilty of it too, and people of every other religious stripe as well. It’s terribly unattractive in whatever form it’s expressed on whatever issue. I often quote the Apostle Paul: “The one who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.” And I always follow with, this doesn’t call for skepticism, that we can’t know, but for epistemological humility. We can in fact know, have true knowledge, but we must realize, especially as we get older, that we don’t now a whole lot more than we do. Wisdom says, I know what I don’t know.

The reason rationalists, and I mean the true believers, are often unpleasant is because of arrogance. If you disagree with them you are wrong, full stop. They are likely not like this in the rest of their lives, but when it comes to God and Christianity, they give no quarter. The weapon of choice for The Rationalist is reason in the form of logic in the form of accusations of logical fallacies. While I am superficially referring to the gentleman I engaged in this conversation, he sounded exactly like other very intelligent atheists I’ve encountered over the years. And with such a weapon no wonder there are so few atheists in the world. Saying that I would be accused, as I was, of the popular fantasy, or some such thing. Just because something is popular doesn’t make it true. To which I replied, duh! This brings up several other fallacies he accused me of, including the straw man and red herring several times. As I thought back on the encounter, I realized he was committing the exact same fallacies he accused me of, numerous times. After I said something, he would tell me what I thought, the straw man, then chop it down.

It was impossible on the fly to challenge it effectively because first, he knows more about a lot of things than I do, and I’m not a professional apologist or debater. I’m a businessman, a sales guy, who dabbles in apologetics. In fact, and I told them this, I hate debates, never watch or listen to them. But The Rationalist seemed to think we were in a debate, and he clearly won, while proving absolutely nothing about the veracity of his worldview. In fact, I thought his arguments were for the most parts terrible, but I’m not quick enough, or knowledgeable or experienced enough to effectively have challenged him. The main problem with The Rationalist, and other rationalists I’ve encountered, is that they come off as condescending. It’s just not appealing. I agree with something Dennis Prager often says. I would rather seek clarity than agreement. I can’t convince anybody of anything, and I gave up even wanting to do that a long time ago. I’d rather have a conversation of mutual respect and understanding, try to the best of my ability to see where the other person is coming from, and let God do what God does. And that’s in any encounter with any human being in any context.

I will continue with some further thoughts about the encounter in my next post. Stay tuned.

Why I Am Not a Presuppositionalist, Evidentialist, or Classical Apologist

Why I Am Not a Presuppositionalist, Evidentialist, or Classical Apologist

Feb 24, 2023 | Apologetics

I am not a presuppositionalist. I don’t believe there is only one correct apologetics methodology as the presuppositionalists claim: I’m in the whatever works camp. For those not familiar with such methodologies, these are ways of going about defending the truth claims of Christianity. I’ve long been frustrated with the one-way-to-do-apologetics insistence when I learned about these methodologies at seminary in 1986. I had gotten the book Classical Apologetics by Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley where I first learned of the different apologetics camps. The subtitle drew me in: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics. These guys believed that the classical approach was the right approach to apologetics, and that frustrated me too.

Being introduced to presuppositionalism at seminary, I had a difficult time understanding it as espoused by its most famous practitioner, Cornelius Van Til. What especially frustrated me, though, was the presuppositionalist contention that their methodology is the only correct biblical apologetics method. The classical apologists, and the evidentialists as well, don’t claim theirs is the only biblical approach like the presuppositionalists, only that it’s the best or right approach. After thinking about this for 35 plus years, I am convinced there is no one biblical or correct apologetics methodology. Let me try to explain why for those who are interested in this kind of stuff.

I’ve been listening to a series on Thomas Aquinas from the Ezra Institute, and listened to an episode dedicated to his apologetics. The Ezra guys are dedicated presuppositionalists and believe it is the only valid biblical way to defend the faith. Our pastor agrees, and last year did a sermon on Acts 17 from this perspective, and it was one of the most frustrating sermons I’ve ever experienced, and that’s saying something given I’ve sat through 43(!) years of sermons. Over all these years of thinking about this, I’ve finally been able to nail down my primary frustration with presuppositionalists. I agree with most of their theology, but it’s the non sequiturs that drive me nuts.

It seems this logical fallacy is common among we sinful human beings, and I include myself in that. It simply means the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. For example, I don’t like a movie, therefore someone concludes I don’t like all movies. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise; I just don’t like that specific movie. The more you become aware of this sinful human tendency, the more common it becomes, like shopping for cars and the car you like seems to be everywhere. Presuppositionalists commit this logical fallacy when they declare anyone who believes in another methodology believes two things:

1. Epistemological neutrality, and 2. Autonomous reason

Number one, If I utilize or believe in a different methodology, they assert that I believe my knowing is not affected by sin and the fall. No Christian believes this, least of all Christian apologists, but presuppositionalists make this accusation all the time. Here is the non sequitur: Just because I don’t agree with their apologetics methodology, doesn’t mean I believe in epistemological neutrality. The same goes for number two. If I disagree with their methodology, they assert I believe reason isn’t tainted by sin, and able by its own unaided reasoning to come to ultimate truth. This is an absurd accusation because nobody believes it! Just because I see value in the Kalam cosmological argument, for example, doesn’t mean I think human reason is pure and untainted by sin. But presuppositionalists claim that I do.

The issue is epistemological, or how we come to know what we know. The main text used for this is Romans 1:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

The presuppositionalists focus on verse 18, that sinful human beings suppress the truth, meaning their ontological status as sinners makes them incapable and unwilling to accept truth. All Christians believe this to one degree or another contra the presuppositionalists. No Christian apologist whatever their methodology, or like me if they don’t have one, believes in a pure reason untainted by sin that has the ability of itself to know the saving truth of Christianity. We all agree the gospel is revealed truth, and God must supernaturally open people’s minds or they will not accept it.

What is strange to me about the presuppositionalist position is that in the very next verse Paul says sinners can know about God because God has made knowledge of who he is plain to them in creation. In fact, he says, His supernatural divine being is in some way obvious! People know it whether they acknowledge it or not. These are deep philosophical waters, too deep to wade into in a blog post, but the main reason I don’t fully buy the presuppositionalist position as I understand it, is because human beings don’t work that way. The Ezra guys and others I’ve heard and read over the years make the assertion specifically about Thomas’s Five Ways, i.e., proofs for the existence of God, that these arguments don’t lead to the God of the Bible, but to some vague Aristotelian god. So? Nobody stops there and says, there, we proved God’s existence, have a great life! No, they lead them to the Scriptures to meet the true and living God, the Creator of the universe, the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

There is no one “biblical” apologetics method because God uses everything to bring sinners to himself. I’ve listened to hundreds of testimonies over the last several years, and few people presuppose their way to Him. I argue from assumptions all the time when I’m talking to people, but that doesn’t mean I can only use assumptions. I believe the presuppositionalist arguments are powerful, but so is everything else God uses to reveal himself to sinners. The number of people who have come to Christ because of non-presuppositionalist apologists like Willian Lane Craig, R.C. Sproul, and C. S. Lewis is all I need to know that there is no one “biblical” apologetics methodology.

One of the podcasts I consistently listen to is the Side B Stories podcast, which is interviews of ex-atheists, agnostics, or skeptics. There are over 60 now, and I’ve listened to every one of them, and these people come to Christ in every way imaginable. The latest is this young man, Nico Tarquinio, who was profoundly affected by Bill Craig’s cosmological argument, among other traditional apologetics arguments. I don’t care what the argument or reasoning is, if it leads someone to Christ, that’s biblical enough for me!

 

Uninvented on The Unbelievable Podcast with Justin Brierly

Uninvented on The Unbelievable Podcast with Justin Brierly

Feb 4, 2023 | Apologetics, Uninvented

As promised . . . . I had the incredible privilige of appearing on two popular British apologetics podcasts in one week! And Unbeliebale is the longest running apologetics podcast in existence. I would love to see what everybody thinks about which perspective is more plausible, mine (and Justin’s), or Matthew’s. I’m extremely biased for obvious reasons, so I’m curious to see what others think. I also went through a bunch of the comments on Youtube and that’s an interesting experience. Don’t think I convinced the skeptics. One said it was the worst apologetics ever! I’m an amateur, what can I say. Enjoy!