The Sword Room

Today I was reading in Jeremiah 21. The chapter begins with Pashur, a priest in Jerusalem, incarcerating the prophet. One of the most popular means of silencing anyone who insists on speaking the truth of God’s Word is to lock them up, thereby taking them out of circulation. In Jeremiah’s case he was put in prison and on another occasion thrown into a cistern of mud and left to die. In the early chapters of Acts we see Peter jailed for preaching the gospel. Paul wrote many of his epistles from Roman dungeons.

Another way of silencing people is to threaten them or make them look foolish. Jeremiah was put in stocks and humiliated publicly to where he wanted to give up proclaiming the Word of God. But the compulsion to speak truth was like a fire in his bones and he was weary of holding it in. Elijah ran for his life to get away from Ahab and Jezebel, fearing that if they apprehended him they would kill him, thereby ridding themselves once and for all of his message of judgment.

When imprisonment, threats, and ridicule failed, King Zedekiah tried to get Jeremiah to change the message–make it more positive and uplifting. For every true prophet like Elijah, there were 450 false prophets on the payroll ready and willing to scratch sinners where they itched. The problem is that such false feel good-ism is like a sugar pill that tastes sweet but cannot deliver the needed remedy. We must hear the bad news before we can hear the good news. Against the backdrop of the bad news that we are lost sinners the good news of the gospel seems even better.

On this site I deal almost primarily with men–men who have turned a deaf ear to the Lord, often for decades. They have wasted their lives and fallen for devil’s three trump cards of lust, laziness, and lies. They bave burned through jobs, money, churches, marriages, and children. They have traded away their birthright of blessing for a lousy bowl of soup in the form of booze, dope, sex, porno, and bad counsel. These fellows need the hard truth delivered right between the eyes.

Our whole culture, pop–evangelicalism included–does not need to be coddled any longer with the pabulum of positivism. The truth our nation needs to hear right now will not be addressed by either political party because it cuts against the grain of the flesh. The gospel stinks like a rotting corpse to those who know not the Savior. They want it out of the public square and once they have removed it from the schoolhouse (as they have already) they will head for the churchhouse and work their way all the way down to the outhouse.

Perhaps you have noticed over the past few years that the world is attempting to silence Christians. Mostly by making them feel like slack-jawed jerkwater imeciles living back in the unenlightened Dark Ages. The day will come here in America when preachers will be thrown into jail for spreading harassment ant hate from the pulpit. Our president has already stuffed a gag into the mouths of our Christian chaplains in the armed forces, while making every accommodation for Muslims, Hindus, and Druids.

It used to be easy to stand for the truth of the gospel. It seems to be getting a little more difficult every day. May God raise up a few more Isaiahs, Elijahs, and Jeremiahs for the present hour.

But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15).

The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:4-5).

Read the second of the above passages in context and you will see that it is not talking about controlling one’s inner thought life, although that is a worthy discipline. Paul is talking about belief systems under the metaphor of fortresses. Everyone has a belief system which functions as a protective fortress from which he views the world and reality. It could also be called a world view. The question is not whether you have a belief system or not, but rather: is your belief system based on truth? Is it in line with what God says about the nature of things, or is it in opposition to Him and His Word? Paul tells us he was in the business of destroying fortresses raised up against the knowledge of God. He says every thought or idea must be brought under the obedience of Christ because He is the Lord of all knowledge.

So what does this have to do with presuppositional apologetics? Let me give an answer that is adequate without being too wordy. First, God saves sinners. He elects, draws, regenerates, justifies, and glorifies them. He is both the ultimate and efficient cause. Man does not contribute anything to his salvation. Scripture teaches monergism: salvation is the work of a single agent–God. Synergism is the erroneous belief that salvation is a joint effort of man and God and that man is able to somehow cooperate with God and contribute to his salvation.

But even though God saves sinners, He sovereignly uses secondary means and agents to accomplish His plan. As God draws sinners to Himself he uses prayer, circumstances, events, and relationships. When the sinner is ready to hear the Gospel God uses a human mouthpiece to communicate the message. God used the death of my friend Lance Farmer in 1971 to shatter my youthful sense of immortality and motivate me to cry out to Him. After I was saved I learned that a local pastor had put me on his prayer list several years earlier.

Here is where presuppositional apologetics fits into the equation. God can use the skillful application of the presuppositional approach to obliterate the unbeliever’s fortress and cause him to doubt his belief system. Just as Lance’s death caused me to face my mortality and cry out to God, leading to my salvation three days later,  the practice of presuppositional apologetics can create a healthy sense of insecurity in the mind of the pagan. It causes him to re-examine his epistemology (theory of knowledge) and cry out to God for truth. It does not save him, but God can use it in the drawing process as preparation for the hearing of the Gospel.

God can also use the evidential approach in spite of its shaky presuppositions and wimpy methodology. God can use anything He chooses. Remember, it was no credit to Balaam’s jackass that God spoke through her.

I hope these four brief posts have at least piqued your interest in the subject of presuppositional apologetics. Really, I have just scratched the surface with my explanation and single example of how to use this approach. If you want more on this I would suggest the following materials. First, get the book Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, by Greg Bahnsen and Joel McDurman. Second, check out the DVD Collision, featuring a series of debates between presuppositionalist Douglas Wilson and atheist Christopher Hitchins. Both are available at reasonable prices on Amazon.

So here we go. Defending the faith without thinking the monkey is on our back to prove God’s existence. No pressure to sound relevant or hip or gain respectability by hanging with the pagan intellectually on his terms. No mud wrestling with pigs. We will not answer the fool according to his folly, except to show him he is not a smart as he thinks. We have our presuppositions immovably in place. We are on the offense, not the defense.

The atheist or agnostic says he does not believe in God because he sees no compelling evidence for theism. Avoiding the trap of offering rational proofs, historical evidences, and explanations for evil and suffering, we instead ask a simple question: What kind of evidence would be sufficient to convince you that there is a God? Most pagans who ask for “evidence” fancy themselves as scientific thinkers, and they pride themselves in the claim that they refuse to believe anything without proof. They even define faith as belief without proof. So press the question, and ask them to be specific. The answers you will get will be demands for empirical evidence: Give me something I can see, hear, taste, smell, or touch–give me scientific evidence! The pagan knows, as I will show, that you are not able to produce any such evidence that will convince him. Case closed.

But if you know Scripture at all you are familiar with the stories of Pharaoh, Ahab, and the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day. No amount of hard physical evidence will necessarily penetrate the heart hardened by sin. You also know that no functioning human being bases all his beliefs on empirical evidence. Scientific knowledge is only useful when dealing with material objects. But what about non-material constructs, like logical syllogisms or mathematical equations? What about abstract concepts like love, hate, good, evil, freedom, justice, and beauty? Believe it or not there are a very few hard-line materialists (those who believe nothing exists outside the material cosmos) who declare these things non-existent because they do not technically exist in the “real” world. After all, they would argue, what color is love? What does justice smell like? What does evil taste like? And so on.

And yet we all assume that love exists. Try and imagine a world where love is reduced to a series neuro-chemical reactions in the brain. (Kinda’ puts the damper on Valentines Day, doesn’t it?) And when we read about some monster molesting and murdering a sweet little girl, we know evil is real. On 09-11-2001 no American denied the reality of evil. Even when an atheist denies the existence of God based on the so-called problem of evil, he is admitting he is not a strict empiricist. He believes in beauty, virtue, love, and freedom as well as good and evil. What fool have you ever met who would demand scientific evidence to prove the existence of these things? At the end of the day there are no pure empiricists. The university philosophy professor might argue for that position in the classroom; but when he comes home to catch his wife sleeping with another man, his theory flies out the window and he believes in right and wrong.

So why would someone demand hard physical (scientific, empirical) evidence to prove the existence of an incorporeal entity? God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24). In the very nature of the case spirits are non-material. Their existence cannot be fully demonstrated by means of physical criteria. So here is the point. The atheist/agnostic is really inconsistent in his demand for “evidence.” He would have you think he bases all his knowledge on scientific proof, but as we have shown this is not the case. He insists on empirical evidence in the matter of God’s existence because this way he can remain committed to autonomy from God. He can sit back and evaluate data as though it existed independently of God, setting himself up as the judge of its validity.

But if we are talking about the existence of an all-powerful spiritual being, does it not make sense that we ought to leave the door open for Him to reveal Himself in a way of His rather than our choosing? Just as our rational and intuitive knowledge informs us of the reality of non-material concepts, does it not seem reasonable that God discloses Himself to us through a revelational form of knowledge? Of course this is how it actually works. But the pagan dogmatically rejects the possibility of revelational knowledge, and he will fall back time and time again on his hackneyed demand for physical evidence.

The presuppositional approach is designed to show the pagan that his system of thought is shot through with inconsistency and and sheer dogmatism. I guess this is enough for now. We will finish tomorrow. In the meantime, if this is tough to follow please contact me either through a post comment or using the contact page.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes (Prov. 26:4-5).

We talked about evidential apologetics yesterday. Using that approach is like mud wrestling with a pig–you can’t win a battle with a pig on his home territory. Trying to persuade an unbeliever with evidences or proofs is a fruitless endeavor which allows him to remain committed to autonomy from God and profess himself to be wise (Rom. 1:22) when he is in fact a fool. The evidential approach proceeds from the faulty belief in a mythical neutral or common ground between the believer and unbeliever and the wrong assumption that either is able to evaluate data objectively.

Today we will discuss the presuppositional approach to apologetics, and tomorrow we will give some concrete examples of how to use it. For starters here are the bedrock presuppositions you must start with in order to effectively defend the faith. It is important that you know and understand them, and it is completely irrelevant whether or not the unbeliever accepts them.

1. THE TRIUNE GOD OF SCRIPTURE EXISTS. This is a given. You do not for one second assume for the sake of argument that God might not exist or that He doesn’t exist. The Bible assumes God’s existence and nowhere tries to prove it. God does not need you to prove His existence to anyone.

2. GOD IS THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF ALL TRUE KNOWLEDGE. In Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3). This includes historical, mathematical, logical, empirical, sensory, ethical, and spiritual knowledge. When any human being truly knows anything that knowledge is his on loan from God. He is thinking God’s thoughts after Him. Just as the source of all time, space, matter, energy, and life are from God, so too all true knowledge issues forth from Him. This means that there are no abstract truths which exist and operate in autonomy from Him. The very possibility of knowledge depends on the existence of God as the source.

3. ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE CREATED IN GOD’S IMAGE AND AS SUCH KNOW GOD IS REAL AT SOME LEVEL. When the atheist rails against theism and theists he is denying that which he already knows to be true at some level (Rom. 1:18ff.). This is why arguing with him about the existence of God is such a charade and doomed to failure. The atheist’s problem is not an intellectual one–it is a moral issue. It is not that he cannot believe in the true God: he refuses to. And this is not a neutral philosophical matter. It is rebellion against God.

4. SIN RENDERS FALLEN MAN UNABLE TO RESPOND IN A POSITIVE WAY TO THE WITNESS OF GOD IN EITHER GENERAL REVELATION OR SPECIAL REVELATION. General revelation is God’s self-disclosure through creation and conscience (Rom. 1-2), and special revelation is the Word of God. When a fallen image-bearer is confronted with the witness of God in either sphere of revelation he does three things according to Rom. 1:18ff: (1) He suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, (2) exchanges the truth of God for a lie, and (3) worships and serves the creature/creation rather than the Creator. Now you see the futility of trying to find neutral ground with an unbeliever when attempting to defend your faith. There is no neutral ground. You have your presuppositions and he has his. Yours are right and his are wrong. Do not yield any quarter for the sake of argument. (By the way, now you know where the world religions all come from.)

5. THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, NOT SOPHISTICATED ARGUMENTATION, IS GOD’S POWER SOURCE FOR THE SALVATION OF SINNERS. Any kind of discussion you have with an unbeliever around the truth of your Christian faith must boil down to the Gospel at some point. The Gospel is God’s designated means for the unleashing of His saving power (Rom. 1:16). For a short definition of the Gospel see 1 Cor. 15:1-5.

6. GOD SAVES SINNERS. He draws them, regenerates them, and supplies them the faith they need to trust the person and work of His Son. Many will hear the gospel and think it is foolishness (1 Cor. 2:14). Don’t be surprised by this because it is all the sinner is capable of while he is dead in trespasses and sins. The truth of the Gospel is veiled until God brings it to light through the new birth (2 Cor. 4:3-4). Saving people is God’s business. Your job, ultimately, is to present the saving message clearly and accurately. God sovereignly produces the result He desires in His own time and way.

With these basic presuppositions in place we will look tomorrow at how to answer the unbeliever who asks for proof or “evidence” for God’s existence.

Atheism and agnosticism are growing in popularity. In recent months through my reading, television viewing, and casual conversations I have heard more than a few people commenting that they either don’t believe in God or don’t/can’t know if He exists. They refuse to accept His existence as fact in the absence of proof. At the pop level there are guys like Bill Maher, who through his recent movie Religulous has made doubt/unbelief look like a reasonable and respectable option. A recent trip to Barnes and Noble revealed a wide selection of more scholarly volumes defending the doubt and denial of God’s existence.

The doubter asks for proof. Sounds like a fair request. Often the first line of response for the believer is to scurry for evidence for the existence of God and truth of Christianity. Rational proofs, historical arguments, defense of the accuracy of the Bible as an historical document, proof of the resurrection of Christ, and the testimony of famous atheists and agnostics who after careful examination of the facts became theists. This line of defense is called the evidential approach to apologetics and was made popular a few years back by Josh McDowell in his bestseller Evidence that Demands a Verdict. This volume was published shortly after I got saved in 1971, and it was a great source of encouragement to me as a young Christian.

Evidentialism is quite persuasive if you are already a believer. Its weakness is that it assumes the possibility of approaching the unbeliever on neutral ground and that he is able to objectively evaluate evidence. But there is no neutral ground or objectivity for the believer or unbeliever. The unbeliever is dead in trespasses and sins; he is in rebellion against God; he has no desire to submit his intellect to the Creator. His commitment is to his own autonomy from God. Nor do we see in Scripture, either by command or example, where we as Christians are to put aside our beliefs for the sake of discussion and argue from a “neutral position.”

Here is how the scenario usually proceeds using an evidential approach. The unbeliever asks for evidence, and the believer presents the standard Josh McDowell proofs and arguments. Point-by-point the unbeliever counters with his own arguments. Then he gets into the problem of evil and suffering and questions the goodness and omnipotence of God. He points to all the atrocities committed through the centuries in the name of God. At this point the unbeliever is on the offense and the believer is playing defense. For every answer the believer offers the unbeliever is ready with another objection. The believer walks away frustrated, and the unbeliever is reinforced in his unbelief. If you have ever engaged in such discussions you know the drill.

I want to show you a better way over the next few days, a way which allows you to be on the offense and puts the believer on the defense. A way which allows you to relax and not think God needs you to argue for His existence. A way which instead proceeds on the assumption or presupposition that the Triune God of Scripture exists. I am going to give you a short tutorial on the presuppositional approach to apologetics, or defending the faith. This approach examines the inconsistencies of the unbeliever’s assumptions and arguments. It reveals the disingenuous and intellectually dishonest nature of his unbelief system. Specifically it targets the unbeliever’s epistemology, or theory of knowledge.

So hang tight. And while you wait here is a homework assignment. If you know someone who wants evidence for the existence of God ask them this question: What kind of evidence would convince you that God is real? Have them be as specific as they can be. If you can’t ask someone this question try to imagine how they might answer it. Write your answers down or file them away in your mind.

I am not here referring to the popular idea of apologizing so familiarly dreadful to all, especially married men.  An apology in theological discussion refers to an answer or defense for one’s beliefs, and comes from the Greek apologia used in New Testament verses like 1 Peter 3:15, where we told to be ready to give an answer (apologia) for the hope that is within us.

On Monday I will begin a short series of entries on how to apologize, or give an answer for our personal faith and belief system as Christians. Recently I have been interacting with young people who say they reject theism in general and Christianity specifically because there is no proof or evidence to convince them otherwise. After watching Bill Maher’s movie Religulous last week I am even more convinced of the need to do apologetics properly.

Over the next two days I would encourage you to watch my sword videos on atheism and agnosticism. There you will get a preview of what is to come. Also you might familiarize yourself with the difference between evidential and presuppositional apologetics. Google these two-bit terms, and you will see they represent fairly simple concepts. You might also look up a definition of the word epistemology.

Don’t panic, just do a little homework, and we will see you on Monday.