This is a paper I wrote a number of years ago, dealing with the subject of presuppositions and evidence. Though these schools of thought are sometimes pitted against each other, I argue that they are best viewed together. While I might tweak certain aspects of what I wrote then, I generally agrree with most of what follows.
Within the discipline of apologetics, two basic approaches often emerge; some refer to themselves as presuppositionalists and others as evidentialists. Those who appropriate these labels then go on to defend their respective agendas, typically denouncing the views of those with whom they disagree. Unfortunately, however, there is also a tendency to highlight those truths that best support a given view, and to ignore those that don't perfectly fit one’s current scheme. Sometimes this even lead to a misrepresentation of the positions of those on the other side. When this occurs, the potential benefits of differing viewpoints are missed.
In contrast with a one-dimensional view, my contention is that a combined approach might be feasible. Perhaps, the best of both worlds can be melded together into a coherent system. This short paper is intended to foster such efforts.
Introduction
Apologetics involves displaying the truth and beauty of the Christian world view. But not all apologists agree on the manner in which this is best accomplished. As mentioned above, this has led to various schools of thought or perspectives, often philosophical in nature, as to the most biblical and helpful way to promote the gospel.
Among apologetic methods two broad categories emerge, presuppositionalism and evidentialism.
Evidence, on the other hand, is that which gives credence and support for a certain contention. Moreover, if genuinely reflective of Scripture, it is that which warrants acceptance and, hopefully, an allegiance to the truth. This evidence, accurately portrayed, is not only right but persuasive and attractive to the Spirit-illumined mind (1 Corinthians 2:9-13). In any case, evidentialism stresses the need to provide support or evidence for the faith.
Of course it would be a misnomer to assert that presuppositionalists and evidentialists operate in completely separate spheres. Often each crosses over into the territory of the other—presuppositionalists by their utilization of evidence and evidentialists through their use of an essentially Christian framework. Extreme versions aside, neither method can be viewed in a completely isolated manner.
But this is not to say that those from either school are in total agreement when it comes to apologetic procedures. Indeed, the two are typically viewed as distinct and basically different ways to approach apologetics. The contention here, though, is that this need not be the case. Therefore, contrary to popular portrayal and the dogmatic assumptions of some on either side, presuppositions and evidence can and should be viewed as complementary.
In order to demonstrate this, it is important to back up and gain a larger biblical-theological perspective on these matters, and this requires an inquiry into the very nature of man himself and how he acquires knowledge. This entails a brief consideration of epistemology and ontology.
Epistemological and Ontological Reflections
Epistemology and ontology are two separate but closely related subjects. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and how one comes to acquire it. Feinberg describes it as “an inquiry into the nature and source of knowledge, the bounds of knowledge, and the justification of claims to knowledge.”[3] Ontology, on the other hand, concerns the nature of being, the “theory of the nature of things.”[4] It involves the metaphysics of being human, emphasizing both the capacities and limitations inherent among created beings.
In basic terms epistemology concerns how humans think, their outlook and perspective, the way they look at and interpret life. Ontology deals more with what humans are, the metaphysical components that make one a human in the first place
As might be expected, there is a wide range of opinion as to the precise interpretation of such matters, and no one has exhausted every nuance of these terms. There is, however, much to be gleaned from a basic understanding of them. Indeed, both epistemology and ontology have a role to play in laying the groundwork for a Christian apologetic.
From the standpoint of epistemology, the believer and unbeliever often differ considerably in their respective explanations of reality. Indeed, as some have argued, Christians and non-Christians are diametrically opposed at the foundational level. Christians interpret life in light of God’s recorded communication (Psalm 1:1-3). Unbelievers, on the other hand, naturally reject any genuine divine authority (Psalm 1:4-6; Romans 3:9-11). This is why Paul so strongly asserts that “the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Corinthians 2:14). This does not mean that unbelievers are always consistent with their own world view; the opposite is often (thankfully) the case. Generally, however, unregenerate individuals tend to explain life in terms contrary to the revealed will of God in Scripture. They live by a different set of epistemological standards than believers.
Next, there is the matter of ontology. All humans are made in God's image. “To be made in the ‘image of God' means that man has an essential likeness and/or similarity in a finite, relative manner to the infinite, self-existing God.”[5] As such, there are certain universal characteristics among all people, including intellect, morality, creativity, and other factors. These capacities are reflective of man’s being constructed to be, in some limited sense, like God, and they enable man to recognize, both internally and in the external world, that there is a God. However precisely this image is defined, all humans share in it and possess the same ontological capacity. Mayers notes: “Because believer and unbeliever alike live in God's universe and are made in His image, the ultimate structure of being is identical.”[6]
All of this implies that natural man is a strange mixture of knowledge and ignorance, a conglomeration of truth and error. At one level, man knows God, while at another level he denies Him. These matters are dealt with in Romans 1-3. There Paul says that humanity’s knowledge of God extends even to an apprehension of the Creator’s attributes (Romans 1:20). At the same time, man’s moral corruption will not allow him to interpret the truth rightly. Thus he “suppress[es] the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). In the words of Pascal:
These epistemological and ontological considerations are pivotal in developing a biblical model of communication. Because fallen men are epistemologically flawed, efforts to reach them must not assume non-Christian presuppositions, for these will often conflict with God’s revealed will, reflecting a basic spiritual opposition to the things of God. But hope is not lost, for Christian evidences are (potentially) perspicuous to non-Christians. That is, man’s metaphysical makeup still reflects a capacity to recognize God. Though unbelievers cannot repent or believe apart from divine aid, they do retain an affinity (severely corrupted as it may be) for higher things.
In sum Christian apologists must recognize both epistemological and ontological factors. In blending these two categories, a balanced apologetic is possible.
A Balanced Apologetic Approach
The above discussion is intended to show that presuppositions and evidence should not be viewed as separate and irreconcilable notions. “Presuppositionalists want to begin with God, evidentialists with ourselves; the balanced apologist says start with both God and ourselves simultaneously, as these cannot be broken apart.”[8] As a result, any valid evidentialist method assumes and promotes Christian presuppositions. Similarly, a presuppositional method is truly biblical only if it contends, from a Christian vantage point, the evidence of the Christian faith.
This combined approach is brought out by the biblical data itself. John 14:17, for instance, clearly identifies the presuppositional deficiencies of the unbeliever. “The world cannot receive [the Spirit of truth].” At the same time, this same gospel of John urges readers to appropriate the evidence, particularly that of Jesus’ signs, and to follow that evidence to God’s Son, Jesus the Christ (John 20:30-31). Indeed, a number of texts state or imply both presuppositions and evidences simultaneously (e.g., Acts 2:14-40; 7:1-53; 9:20-25; 14:8-19; 1 Peter 3:13-17).
What this does for apologetics is provide a balanced outlook on reaching the lost. To ignore presuppositions leads either to an underestimation of mankind’s fallen condition or a compromise of Jesus’ Lordship. Likewise, evidential ignorance results in a type of fideism[9] in which communication is rendered extremely difficult, if not impossible.
The best apologetic method is one in which presuppositions and evidence are integrated. Thus, the believer enters the apologetic encounter already presupposing the truth of Christianity and alert to the possible anti-Christian presuppositions of the unbeliever. Furthermore, the Christian’s commitment to a biblical world view (i.e., Christian presuppositions) reinforces his confidence in the Bible’s truth claims, even as it stimulates evangelistic zeal.
But the recipients of the good news must still see for themselves the many treasures of Christian truth, the believability of the Bible’s claims, and the attractiveness of the gospel. Therefore, Christian apologists argue on the basis of biblical presuppositions. Arguments and presuppositions work hand in hand in the outworking of a cogent, biblically directed apologetic.
Basic Applications
From what precedes, a number of relevant ideas appear. These can be summarized as follows:
1. Christians must presuppose the Bible's world view in their apologetic efforts. In simple terms this is an outworking of the fact that Jesus is in charge.
There are a number of ways in which Christian presuppositions play a role in the believer’s efforts to reach those who are not yet followers of Jesus. For one, the matter of presuppositions serves as a powerful reminder of one’s basic Christian commitments. Life in the real world can involve numerous situations, opportunities, and difficulties. Believers, interacting with those whom they encounter, face a myriad of personalities, questions, objections, and needs. The sheer complexity of communication makes it easy to lose track of the what really matters. This being the case, it is imperative that Christians allow Scriptural counsel to pervade their witnessing opportunities. Thus, God’s word, i.e., biblical presuppositions, becomes the guiding force in any attempt to spread the gospel (Psalm 119:11-13; 41-48; 129-130).
Of course there is good reason why believers must be on their guard in speaking with non-Christians. This reason, which is at the core of the Bible’s teaching concerning mankind, is human impropriety or sin (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). The world simply does not operate by the same rules as those who desire to be faithful to Scripture. Presuppositionalism reminds Christians that those whom they meet share a different world view. This, in turn, produces a determination to avoid unnecessary compromise, as well as a realization that only God can ultimately overcome human antagonism and invalid presuppositions.
An awareness of presuppositions forces believers to live by faith, a reasonable faith to be sure, but faith nonetheless. Both believer and unbeliever maintain (consciously or not) basic personal and intellectual commitments. The difference is that the Christian’s reflect reality as defined by God in Scripture.[10] Furthermore, the framework to which believers are bound claims special inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
In the final analysis, the determination to uphold and promote Christian presuppositions is an acknowledgment of the Lordship of Christ (1 Peter 3:15). It is within the sphere of clearly enunciated beliefs that unbelievers can receive spiritual life (James 1:18).
2. It is important for apologists to recognize that non-Christians are made in the divine image and thus possess a certain innate knowledge of God. This serves as the believer’s point of contact with the world.
Man intuitively knows God. To be sure, rebellion has blocked the way, and truth is often suppressed by the non-Christian. Still, this does not imply that communication between believer and unbeliever is impossible. Indeed, the only reason why evangelism and apologetics are feasible in the first place is because the image of God in man is a genuine point of contact. As mentioned above, all men are metaphysically alike; that is, they all posses the same human tools by which the truth can be potentially accessed. Though the gospel is suppressed by natural men (Romans 1:18), God is able to overcome antipathy and apathy and so enable non-Christians to grasp His message. In the providence and purposes of the living Lord, unbelievers can be transformed into believers.
3. The story line and primary themes of Scripture must be persuasively declared, demonstrated, and argued.
A proper apologetic stance begins with a commitment to Jesus’ Lordship as manifested in His Word. This provides the Christian with the discernment needed to both avoid faulty thinking and uphold the truth.
But a biblically grounded approach must still meet people where they are. This necessitates an awareness of the human condition and a determination to share the truth with others.
The manner in which this works its way out can range from sophisticated encounters to simple discussions. Whatever the precise argumentation, answers must indeed be provided. Though spiritual life requires divine initiative, God normally operates through human interaction and the contemplation of divinely revealed truth. As Peter notes, Christians must “be ready to give a defense” (1 Peter 3:15).
Conclusion
A full-orbed apologetic incorporates both presuppositions and evidence. Rather than viewing these as separate and distinct categories, thoughtful believers should take advantage of the strengths of each. Christian truth must be believed and uncompromisingly maintained. Apart from a Christian world view, confusion runs rampant. Simultaneously, the many beauties of the biblical message need to be displayed for all to see.
Put plainly, biblically minded apologetics seeks to reach the whole person with the whole gospel (Acts 5:20). Christian duty demands such an approach, one in which the divine image in man is properly understood and divine Lordship rightly maintained.
May the Lord Himself enable us gain a balanced perspective, one which perceives man as he is, envisions what he might be, and looks for supernatural assistance along the way. Then, perhaps, more emboldened believers will conscientiously seek to shine forth the gospel of Jesus the Savior.
NOTES
1. John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1987), 45.
2. Some, perhaps overly influenced by philosophical usage, have equated presuppositionalism with a priori knowledge, knowledge possessed temporally prior to and independent of any experience. While there is much debate about the relationship between a priori and a posteriori knowledge (i.e., that which is gained through experience), this need not overly hinder one's understanding of presuppositions. As used here presuppositions are merely the ultimate commitments (consciously maintained or not) all people hold. For an excellent discussion of these matters, see John M. Frame, Cornelius Van Ti1: An Analysis of His Thought (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1995), 131-139.
3. Paul D. Feinberg, "Epistemology" in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 359.
4. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 401.
5. Ronald B. Mayers, Balanced Apologetics: Using Evidence and Presuppositions in Defense of the Faith (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1984), 27.
6. Ibid., 215. Mayers himself categorizes this likeness among all people as related to three factors: creation, the image of God in man, and historical revelation.
7. Blaise Pascal, Pensées, quoted in C. Stephen Evans, Why Believe?: Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 50.
8. Mayers, 198.
9. "The view that the objects of religious belief and commitment must be accepted by faith rather than proved by reason." Millard J. Erickson, Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 57. Extreme versions of fideism are unquestionably contrary to a wealth of biblical data. For a brief survey of some fideistic positions, see Paul Helm, "Faith, Evidence, and the Scriptures" in Scripture and Truth, Eds. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 303-320.
10. See John M. Frame's discussion in Apologetics to the Glory of God, 9-14.
Within the discipline of apologetics, two basic approaches often emerge; some refer to themselves as presuppositionalists and others as evidentialists. Those who appropriate these labels then go on to defend their respective agendas, typically denouncing the views of those with whom they disagree. Unfortunately, however, there is also a tendency to highlight those truths that best support a given view, and to ignore those that don't perfectly fit one’s current scheme. Sometimes this even lead to a misrepresentation of the positions of those on the other side. When this occurs, the potential benefits of differing viewpoints are missed.
In contrast with a one-dimensional view, my contention is that a combined approach might be feasible. Perhaps, the best of both worlds can be melded together into a coherent system. This short paper is intended to foster such efforts.
Introduction
Apologetics involves displaying the truth and beauty of the Christian world view. But not all apologists agree on the manner in which this is best accomplished. As mentioned above, this has led to various schools of thought or perspectives, often philosophical in nature, as to the most biblical and helpful way to promote the gospel.
Among apologetic methods two broad categories emerge, presuppositionalism and evidentialism.
A presupposition is a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence. For a Christian, the content of Scripture must serve as his ultimate presupposition.[1]Presuppositionalism, then, is the apologetic method which highlights, reflects, and declares the Christian’s assumptions, those grounded in and flowing out of a biblical world view.[2]
Evidence, on the other hand, is that which gives credence and support for a certain contention. Moreover, if genuinely reflective of Scripture, it is that which warrants acceptance and, hopefully, an allegiance to the truth. This evidence, accurately portrayed, is not only right but persuasive and attractive to the Spirit-illumined mind (1 Corinthians 2:9-13). In any case, evidentialism stresses the need to provide support or evidence for the faith.
Of course it would be a misnomer to assert that presuppositionalists and evidentialists operate in completely separate spheres. Often each crosses over into the territory of the other—presuppositionalists by their utilization of evidence and evidentialists through their use of an essentially Christian framework. Extreme versions aside, neither method can be viewed in a completely isolated manner.
But this is not to say that those from either school are in total agreement when it comes to apologetic procedures. Indeed, the two are typically viewed as distinct and basically different ways to approach apologetics. The contention here, though, is that this need not be the case. Therefore, contrary to popular portrayal and the dogmatic assumptions of some on either side, presuppositions and evidence can and should be viewed as complementary.
In order to demonstrate this, it is important to back up and gain a larger biblical-theological perspective on these matters, and this requires an inquiry into the very nature of man himself and how he acquires knowledge. This entails a brief consideration of epistemology and ontology.
Epistemological and Ontological Reflections
Epistemology and ontology are two separate but closely related subjects. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and how one comes to acquire it. Feinberg describes it as “an inquiry into the nature and source of knowledge, the bounds of knowledge, and the justification of claims to knowledge.”[3] Ontology, on the other hand, concerns the nature of being, the “theory of the nature of things.”[4] It involves the metaphysics of being human, emphasizing both the capacities and limitations inherent among created beings.
In basic terms epistemology concerns how humans think, their outlook and perspective, the way they look at and interpret life. Ontology deals more with what humans are, the metaphysical components that make one a human in the first place
As might be expected, there is a wide range of opinion as to the precise interpretation of such matters, and no one has exhausted every nuance of these terms. There is, however, much to be gleaned from a basic understanding of them. Indeed, both epistemology and ontology have a role to play in laying the groundwork for a Christian apologetic.
From the standpoint of epistemology, the believer and unbeliever often differ considerably in their respective explanations of reality. Indeed, as some have argued, Christians and non-Christians are diametrically opposed at the foundational level. Christians interpret life in light of God’s recorded communication (Psalm 1:1-3). Unbelievers, on the other hand, naturally reject any genuine divine authority (Psalm 1:4-6; Romans 3:9-11). This is why Paul so strongly asserts that “the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Corinthians 2:14). This does not mean that unbelievers are always consistent with their own world view; the opposite is often (thankfully) the case. Generally, however, unregenerate individuals tend to explain life in terms contrary to the revealed will of God in Scripture. They live by a different set of epistemological standards than believers.
Next, there is the matter of ontology. All humans are made in God's image. “To be made in the ‘image of God' means that man has an essential likeness and/or similarity in a finite, relative manner to the infinite, self-existing God.”[5] As such, there are certain universal characteristics among all people, including intellect, morality, creativity, and other factors. These capacities are reflective of man’s being constructed to be, in some limited sense, like God, and they enable man to recognize, both internally and in the external world, that there is a God. However precisely this image is defined, all humans share in it and possess the same ontological capacity. Mayers notes: “Because believer and unbeliever alike live in God's universe and are made in His image, the ultimate structure of being is identical.”[6]
All of this implies that natural man is a strange mixture of knowledge and ignorance, a conglomeration of truth and error. At one level, man knows God, while at another level he denies Him. These matters are dealt with in Romans 1-3. There Paul says that humanity’s knowledge of God extends even to an apprehension of the Creator’s attributes (Romans 1:20). At the same time, man’s moral corruption will not allow him to interpret the truth rightly. Thus he “suppress[es] the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). In the words of Pascal:
What a chimera is man! What a novelty! What a monster, what a chaos, what a contradiction, what a prodigy! Judge of all things, imbecile worm of the earth; depository of truth, a sink of uncertainty and error; the pride and refuse of the universe![7]Whatever else is true, the fact that all men are ontologically alike—that is, equipped with the same interpretive “equipment”—enables communication between believer and unbeliever to take place. Man’s intuitive knowledge of God serves as the point of contact from which interaction with the unbeliever may occur. Christian apologetics appeals to this inherent God-awareness, suppressed as it may be, looking through the layers of false ideas and invalid assumptions, seeking to reach the heart of man. Of course only God can ultimately plumb the depths of the human soul and overcome humanity’s aversion to the things of God (Ephesians 2:1-10).
These epistemological and ontological considerations are pivotal in developing a biblical model of communication. Because fallen men are epistemologically flawed, efforts to reach them must not assume non-Christian presuppositions, for these will often conflict with God’s revealed will, reflecting a basic spiritual opposition to the things of God. But hope is not lost, for Christian evidences are (potentially) perspicuous to non-Christians. That is, man’s metaphysical makeup still reflects a capacity to recognize God. Though unbelievers cannot repent or believe apart from divine aid, they do retain an affinity (severely corrupted as it may be) for higher things.
In sum Christian apologists must recognize both epistemological and ontological factors. In blending these two categories, a balanced apologetic is possible.
A Balanced Apologetic Approach
The above discussion is intended to show that presuppositions and evidence should not be viewed as separate and irreconcilable notions. “Presuppositionalists want to begin with God, evidentialists with ourselves; the balanced apologist says start with both God and ourselves simultaneously, as these cannot be broken apart.”[8] As a result, any valid evidentialist method assumes and promotes Christian presuppositions. Similarly, a presuppositional method is truly biblical only if it contends, from a Christian vantage point, the evidence of the Christian faith.
This combined approach is brought out by the biblical data itself. John 14:17, for instance, clearly identifies the presuppositional deficiencies of the unbeliever. “The world cannot receive [the Spirit of truth].” At the same time, this same gospel of John urges readers to appropriate the evidence, particularly that of Jesus’ signs, and to follow that evidence to God’s Son, Jesus the Christ (John 20:30-31). Indeed, a number of texts state or imply both presuppositions and evidences simultaneously (e.g., Acts 2:14-40; 7:1-53; 9:20-25; 14:8-19; 1 Peter 3:13-17).
What this does for apologetics is provide a balanced outlook on reaching the lost. To ignore presuppositions leads either to an underestimation of mankind’s fallen condition or a compromise of Jesus’ Lordship. Likewise, evidential ignorance results in a type of fideism[9] in which communication is rendered extremely difficult, if not impossible.
The best apologetic method is one in which presuppositions and evidence are integrated. Thus, the believer enters the apologetic encounter already presupposing the truth of Christianity and alert to the possible anti-Christian presuppositions of the unbeliever. Furthermore, the Christian’s commitment to a biblical world view (i.e., Christian presuppositions) reinforces his confidence in the Bible’s truth claims, even as it stimulates evangelistic zeal.
But the recipients of the good news must still see for themselves the many treasures of Christian truth, the believability of the Bible’s claims, and the attractiveness of the gospel. Therefore, Christian apologists argue on the basis of biblical presuppositions. Arguments and presuppositions work hand in hand in the outworking of a cogent, biblically directed apologetic.
Basic Applications
From what precedes, a number of relevant ideas appear. These can be summarized as follows:
1. Christians must presuppose the Bible's world view in their apologetic efforts. In simple terms this is an outworking of the fact that Jesus is in charge.
There are a number of ways in which Christian presuppositions play a role in the believer’s efforts to reach those who are not yet followers of Jesus. For one, the matter of presuppositions serves as a powerful reminder of one’s basic Christian commitments. Life in the real world can involve numerous situations, opportunities, and difficulties. Believers, interacting with those whom they encounter, face a myriad of personalities, questions, objections, and needs. The sheer complexity of communication makes it easy to lose track of the what really matters. This being the case, it is imperative that Christians allow Scriptural counsel to pervade their witnessing opportunities. Thus, God’s word, i.e., biblical presuppositions, becomes the guiding force in any attempt to spread the gospel (Psalm 119:11-13; 41-48; 129-130).
Of course there is good reason why believers must be on their guard in speaking with non-Christians. This reason, which is at the core of the Bible’s teaching concerning mankind, is human impropriety or sin (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). The world simply does not operate by the same rules as those who desire to be faithful to Scripture. Presuppositionalism reminds Christians that those whom they meet share a different world view. This, in turn, produces a determination to avoid unnecessary compromise, as well as a realization that only God can ultimately overcome human antagonism and invalid presuppositions.
An awareness of presuppositions forces believers to live by faith, a reasonable faith to be sure, but faith nonetheless. Both believer and unbeliever maintain (consciously or not) basic personal and intellectual commitments. The difference is that the Christian’s reflect reality as defined by God in Scripture.[10] Furthermore, the framework to which believers are bound claims special inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
In the final analysis, the determination to uphold and promote Christian presuppositions is an acknowledgment of the Lordship of Christ (1 Peter 3:15). It is within the sphere of clearly enunciated beliefs that unbelievers can receive spiritual life (James 1:18).
2. It is important for apologists to recognize that non-Christians are made in the divine image and thus possess a certain innate knowledge of God. This serves as the believer’s point of contact with the world.
Man intuitively knows God. To be sure, rebellion has blocked the way, and truth is often suppressed by the non-Christian. Still, this does not imply that communication between believer and unbeliever is impossible. Indeed, the only reason why evangelism and apologetics are feasible in the first place is because the image of God in man is a genuine point of contact. As mentioned above, all men are metaphysically alike; that is, they all posses the same human tools by which the truth can be potentially accessed. Though the gospel is suppressed by natural men (Romans 1:18), God is able to overcome antipathy and apathy and so enable non-Christians to grasp His message. In the providence and purposes of the living Lord, unbelievers can be transformed into believers.
3. The story line and primary themes of Scripture must be persuasively declared, demonstrated, and argued.
A proper apologetic stance begins with a commitment to Jesus’ Lordship as manifested in His Word. This provides the Christian with the discernment needed to both avoid faulty thinking and uphold the truth.
But a biblically grounded approach must still meet people where they are. This necessitates an awareness of the human condition and a determination to share the truth with others.
The manner in which this works its way out can range from sophisticated encounters to simple discussions. Whatever the precise argumentation, answers must indeed be provided. Though spiritual life requires divine initiative, God normally operates through human interaction and the contemplation of divinely revealed truth. As Peter notes, Christians must “be ready to give a defense” (1 Peter 3:15).
Conclusion
A full-orbed apologetic incorporates both presuppositions and evidence. Rather than viewing these as separate and distinct categories, thoughtful believers should take advantage of the strengths of each. Christian truth must be believed and uncompromisingly maintained. Apart from a Christian world view, confusion runs rampant. Simultaneously, the many beauties of the biblical message need to be displayed for all to see.
Put plainly, biblically minded apologetics seeks to reach the whole person with the whole gospel (Acts 5:20). Christian duty demands such an approach, one in which the divine image in man is properly understood and divine Lordship rightly maintained.
May the Lord Himself enable us gain a balanced perspective, one which perceives man as he is, envisions what he might be, and looks for supernatural assistance along the way. Then, perhaps, more emboldened believers will conscientiously seek to shine forth the gospel of Jesus the Savior.
NOTES
1. John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1987), 45.
2. Some, perhaps overly influenced by philosophical usage, have equated presuppositionalism with a priori knowledge, knowledge possessed temporally prior to and independent of any experience. While there is much debate about the relationship between a priori and a posteriori knowledge (i.e., that which is gained through experience), this need not overly hinder one's understanding of presuppositions. As used here presuppositions are merely the ultimate commitments (consciously maintained or not) all people hold. For an excellent discussion of these matters, see John M. Frame, Cornelius Van Ti1: An Analysis of His Thought (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1995), 131-139.
3. Paul D. Feinberg, "Epistemology" in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 359.
4. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 401.
5. Ronald B. Mayers, Balanced Apologetics: Using Evidence and Presuppositions in Defense of the Faith (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1984), 27.
6. Ibid., 215. Mayers himself categorizes this likeness among all people as related to three factors: creation, the image of God in man, and historical revelation.
7. Blaise Pascal, Pensées, quoted in C. Stephen Evans, Why Believe?: Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 50.
8. Mayers, 198.
9. "The view that the objects of religious belief and commitment must be accepted by faith rather than proved by reason." Millard J. Erickson, Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 57. Extreme versions of fideism are unquestionably contrary to a wealth of biblical data. For a brief survey of some fideistic positions, see Paul Helm, "Faith, Evidence, and the Scriptures" in Scripture and Truth, Eds. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 303-320.
10. See John M. Frame's discussion in Apologetics to the Glory of God, 9-14.
No comments:
Post a Comment