'Apologetics is useless' and other lies
“Christian apologetics seems to be more of a hot potato than ever. And I’m talking just within the church.” - Robin Schumacher
- 288 views
The author seems to be equating apologetics with evidential apologetics.
Well, his examples are evidentialist. But if you talk about dogs and only use poodles for examples, you’re still talking about “dogs.”
What I got from his apologetic for apologetics is that, whether it’s apologetics in general or evidentialist apologetics in particular, criticisms are often overstated—and the “countless” stories of believers for whom apologetics played a role in their coming to faith are a strong defense.
This has been my experience as well.
I probably don’t understand (or just don’t remember) the essential/most vital differences between the presuppositional and evidentialist schools, but most (all?) evidentialists accept that a work of the Spirit is required for one “dead in trespasses and sins” to fully grasp the truth of the gospel. And I’m also pretty sure most (all?) presuppositionalists grant that Jesus appealed to evidence on many occasions as a basis for belief—and that reasoning from evidence almost always has a role in saving faith.
So… I tend to shrug at that particular dispute. Even back in seminary days, I didn’t really see the point. We didn’t read a lot of Van Til, but read a lot of people who read Van Til. And we also read Clark (Gordon, I think?) who was said to be an advocate of “semi-rational apologetics,” if I remember right. At the time, I found Gordon more persuasive. I’m not sure I would now if I re-read. I often find Van Til hard to understand (but I’m suspicious that some of his advocates have not really understood him either… in my defense).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Yes that is the correct Gordon. I am only minimally acquainted with him. This quote seemed to me to be a potshot at presuppositionalism but maybe not:
On one side, we have Christians who sneer at apologetics, saying that no one ever believes because of it, that it’s only good to shore up the faith of the already faithful, and its methods short-circuit faith, which is the key to everything.
Especially since he then went on to reference Craig and Strobel, two notable evidentialists. I have probably revealed my hand on supporting presuppositionalism as the correct method but that’s not to say that evidences are bad or out of bounds in all cases. As Machen said “Evidences do much to help God’s little ones.”
The number one issue with apologetics is what is your ultimate authority. If you are basing your belief on something other than God and his Word, then you have elevated that something (normally things like experience, science, so-called bare facts, etc) above God's word. When you do that, you are standing on the same sinking sand as an unbeliever, rather than the solid rock of God's word. The unsaved have a worldview that explains experience, science, and facts to fit their belief system. So, that is why we really ought to be arguing at a worldview level, rather than an evidence level.
The Bible doesn’t limit itself to arguing that way, though. For example, Jesus doesn’t say to Thomas, “Dude, you’re looking at things all wrong,” true though that would have been. Instead he says, “Tom, look at the evidence.”
Was He placing the ultimate authority in evidence? We would agree He was not. Rather, He was showing us something about how the human heart and mind work. Admittedly, Thomas isn’t the greatest example, because he was regenerate. Still, Jesus doesn’t hesitate to appeal to evidence. What He is showing us about human nature is that God uses our rational faculties in His process of leading us to truth. He uses both His special revelation and His general revelation.
I’m sure some have an ultimate authority problem, but God doesn’t pit evidence against faith that way. He assumes they talk to each other and uphold each other… which makes sense, since He is the creator of all the evidence as well as the revealer of all the revelation. So of course they go together.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Although I personally came to faith in a presuppositional way, I must look to scripture itself for what it says about this issue. The passage that comes to mind is Hebrews 11:1.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (NASB)
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (KJV)
The NASB has assurance while the KJV has substance. Regardless of which word is used, the idea from this verse is that faith has something under it to support it.
Then we must look at the words "conviction" (NASB) and "evidence" (KJV). Both of these words are able to convey the idea that the things that we do not see, still have proof for their existence.
Apologetics shows that our faith is supported and has proof to back it up. That is consistent with how faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1. Much of that support and proof comes from scripture itself. Much of it comes from nature and general revelation.
BTW, when I say that I came to faith in a presuppositional way, I mean that I trusted Christ at such a young age that I did not have the mental capacity to weigh all the evidence. I just trusted God and believed he would never lie to me because he is God. I believed he gave us the Bible and I should believe it. As I have gotten older and have been able to look at the supports- to weigh the evidence- to evaluate the proof- I have found that my presupposition to trust God was correct.
Admittedly, Thomas isn’t the greatest example, because he was regenerate.
I like Thomas as an example. Jesus attributed Thomas’s faith to his seeing—to acceptance of evidence. (John 20:27-29)
I would love to interact with this in more detail but I'm about ready to leave on vacation (Germany, Austria, and Italy -- mentioning this for Dave's benefit since his brother-in-law has given me some pointers) and I'm not going to be able to follow up on this at all anytime soon.
The Thomas situation is pretty interesting. Thomas approaches the issue with the typical unbelieving mindset of wanting to see it for himself ("Unless I see...and place my finger into...I will never believe"). So Jesus appears the 2nd time and immediately confronts Thomas with words that indicated he knew exactly what Thomas had said earlier. I highly doubt that Jesus is stooping to Thomas's demands. I think he is revealing to him that he is God almighty who knows everything we say and do and he should start believing his word. And of course he is standing right there, but his words are a rebuke and not evidential apologetics. He is not saying, look at my wounds, there is a really good chance I'm alive. It's all direct revelation. And I do think it is significant that Jesus chides him when he says, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed."
How the Bible uses evidences IS very interesting. Thomas becomes one of the many eye witnesses to the resurrection. The Bible presents the empty tomb and these eye witnesses as proof for the resurrection. I don't really see this as evidential apologetics, though, but, as Robert Reymond says, faith's reasons for believing. There is not other rational explanation other than that our Lord did rise from the dead as he said. Same sort of thing goes for the conversion of Saul of Tarsus -- there is no reasonable explanation for why he would convert other than the reality of the risen Lord and the validity of Christianity.
I highly doubt that Jesus is stooping to Thomas’s demands. I think he is revealing to him that he is God almighty who knows everything we say and do and he should start believing his word. And of course he is standing right there, but his words are a rebuke and not evidential apologetics. He is not saying, look at my wounds, there is a really good chance I’m alive. It’s all direct revelation. And I do think it is significant that Jesus chides him when he says, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.”
Agree with parts of this. Jesus words are partly a rebuke, but the rebuke doesn’t make any sense unless the evidence has weight. Jesus is not saying “Thomas, you should be ashamed. Look at this totally meaningless set of wounds I have here, which you can conclude nothing at all from!”
So it is still reasoning from evidence.
Part of what I think muddles a lot of the debate on this is the assumption that we can’t be called to believe, with or without evidence, and at the same time be graciously given evidence.
There’s a false disjunction in there somewhere, though I think I’m not quite putting my finger on it at the moment.
Also, the Thomas case does not stand alone.
33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” 39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands. (Jn 10:33–39)
John seems particularly big on evidence, which may have some connection to his description of Jesus as the logos.
Anyway, Jesus plainly tells the “the Jews” on that occasion that they are condemned because there is evidence and they refuse to look at what it demands them to believe (the condemned part more clear in John 10.25-26).
But there is no need to assume that the evidence stands alone. It clearly does not. Elsewhere, I think in John, Jesus says nobody comes unless they are drawn. But there is no either-or between gracious, miraculous enlightenment and reasoning from evidence. I guess I’m arguing that in conversion, the whole inner man is involved in a complex way, and God acts on the intellect as well as the will and emotions. I doubt anyone has ever been converted without evidence playing a role and doing some thinking. By the same token, evidence alone has never brought sight to the blind.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion