da.rryl.me

Hey Darryl. A couple of things—

[quote]However, it is possible to start from a position of unbelief and make a compelling argument for that position. This doesn’t make that position correct, but it can make it intellectually viable to believe that point of view.[/quote]

Could you give me an example of an unbelieving position which is genuinely intellectually viable; or an example of an unbelieving argument which is genuinely compelling? Even just one would suffice. I wonder if maybe you’re saying that unbelievers are skilled at creating the [i]illusion[/i] of compelling arguments and viable positions? Since "the fool says in his heart ‘there is no God’" (Ps 14:1), it cannot be that unbelieving arguments are genuinely compelling and viable, since only a fool would believe them. Certainly it is my experience that even the "best" unbelieving arguments are only superficially sound; and that once you delve into the epistemological basis for them they are utterly and manifestly worthless.

This leads me on to my second point:

[quote]This is also the heart of evangelism. We are to call people not just to believe in God, but to believe God – to trust Him and submit to Him. Which is why science and philosophy fails as an evangelistic tool – all it can do is (at best) prove that God exists – it does not lead us to trust Christ at all.[/quote]
Again, you rightly point out that evangelism is not about calling people to believe [i]in[/i] God, but calling them to [i]believe God[/i]. It is valuable to remind ourselves of this from time to time. However, you say that philosophy and science [i]fail[/i] as an evangelistic tools because of this. Why? Is it not true that whoever would draw near to God must [i]believe that he exists[/i] and that he rewards those who seek him (Heb 11:6)? Philosophy in evangelism, at its best, can prove that God exists, as you yourself say. It perhaps cannot compel them to believe that he rewards those who seek him, but no sensible apologist would suggest that it does. No sensible apologist thinks that philosophy is the [i]only[/i] tool we are given for evangelism. They think that it is [i]a[/i] tool; often the first tool we use; and a highly effective one. You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to apply the Bible as a blanket tool to cover both the first and second halves of the equation: belief [i]in[/i] God, and belief [i]of[/i] God.

But if someone does not believe that God exists, then you can preach the Bible until you are blue in the face and he may be completely hardened to it, because philosophically he is convinced that it is just fiction. Yes, God [i]can[/i] work in this instance to convert the soul and convince the mind, but the thing about God is that he is a God of order, where causes and effects are properly correlated. So when an unbeliever says, "Why should I believe that the Bible is the word of God; I don’t even believe in God!" it is far more likely that God will work through a [i]philosophical argument[/i] which directly addresses the question than through a response which simply quotes Scripture. You seem to be advocating [i]solo Scriptura[/i], instead of [i]sola Scriptura[/i]. How do you even propose to conduct evangelism if the only response you can give to people who demand reasons to believe is "God says so in the Bible"? They say, "The Bible isn’t God’s word and God doesn’t even exist." You say, "Yes it is, and yes he does." They say, "Prove it!" You say, "Look, it’s in the Bible! 2 Timothy 3:16." They say, "But I don’t believe the Bible!" You say, "But you should, because it’s true!" They say, "Are you stupid? You’re begging the question. No wonder people call Christians irrational idiots." You say, "Don’t worry, the Bible says we will be mocked." Then they leave in disgust, having never had their foolish beliefs exposed, nor the truth of Christianity affirmed in a rational way; and you feel like you have accomplished something because you were ridiculed for believing? But you haven’t accomplished anything. You have given no "reasoned statement in defense of the hope that is within you", as Peter would have said. You have not "destroyed arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God", as Paul would have said. You have just asserted that the Bible is God’s word to someone who doesn’t even believe in God.

Perhaps I am misrepresenting you. If so, could you describe how you would conduct evangelism without any kind of argumentation, be it philosophical or evidential? As we’ve covered before, I think you are way out of line to say that philosophy and science "fail" as evangelistic tools. They manifestly do not fail. In fact, their use is manifestly advocated and [i]commanded[/i] in Scripture. I have already shown this in your previous article, ‘Apologetics and evangelism’, and I don’t think you have responded to the majority of my points there. Perhaps we can address them here.

Regards,
Bnonn

Heya Darryl—

[quote]Regarding your other comments, you assume that I must believe in God before his Holy Spirit can act on me. It seems like a reasonable assumption, but people can and have been saved simply when confronted by the word of God with no belief in God prior to picking up the Bible. [/quote]

I didn’t mean to imply that I think people must believe in God before the Holy Spirit can act. In the case of myself, I came to believe in God after the Holy Spirit acted. Some people already assent to God’s existence, and some people need to be convinced. Of the latter group, some may be convinced before the Holy Spirit acts (and thus become members of the former group), and some may be convinced only by the Holy Spirit himself. In either case, however, philosophical arguments are a means by which the Holy Spirit can bring this about. As I have said, God works through causal relationships. If someone has an overriding philosophical framework of beliefs which [i]precludes[/i] belief in God, then by definition that framework functions as a sufficient cause to prevent faith. We should not, therefore, ordinarily expect that God overcome this sufficient cause by abandoning the normal operation of things. Rather, he will overcome it through the [i]normal[/i] means, which is to philosophically demonstrate that the framework of beliefs is unjustified. I’ve said this before in the previous article: to be converted and yet still hold this belief framework would entail significant cognitive dissonance, and we would have to question what kind of faith (that is: belief in and knowledge of God) would be possible in someone who still simultaneously thinks that there are good reasons to believe God does not exist and that the Bible is not his word.

[quote]What I do maintain, is that statements like "the Bible is not enough anymore" are simply wrong. [/quote]

Could you clarify the context and intent of this sort of statement? I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say something like this, but I am curious about it. How exclusive is it supposed to be? Is it intended to mean [i]solo Scriptura[/i] is not sufficient for evangelism? Because the extremes of [i]solo Scriptura[/i] are pretty extreme, and certainly are not sufficient for evangelism. Or is it claiming that [i]sola Scriptura[/i] is insufficient for evangelism?

Additionally, when you say that philosophical and scientific arguments "fail" as evangelistic tools, do you mean that they fail in terms of being [i]sufficient[/i] conditions for conversion, [i]necessary[/i] conditions, or both? I’m sure no one here would disagree with you if you mean that they fail as sufficient conditions. It sounds to me like perhaps you are arguing that since Scripture is a necessary and, in principle, sufficient condition for conversion, it stands to reason that no other necessary but, in principle insufficient conditions are required. If so, then we should address that argument—specifically from Scripture itself.

[quote]Equally, many people who go to church and believe in God hear the word of God and harden their hearts too and are condemned for their unbelief. Are we responsible for their hard heart? Is the intellect the way to change a hard heart? [/quote]

I’m not sure what you mean by this question. Obviously we cannot be [i]fully[/i] responsible for the hardness of someone else’s heart. The evangelist is not responsible for someone not believing God’s word. The preacher, similarly, is not responsible for his congregation failing to take heed of Scripture. However, to make this question analogous to my illustration, both the evangelist and the preacher are responsible for their own conduct, which correlates into a kind of shared responsibility with those two whom they are preaching if that conduct is a contributing factor to the hardness of the unbeliever. If we were to make your question analagous to my illustration, we would have to have the preaching itself be in some way defective. For example, if the preacher never actually expounded the words of Scripture but merely read them to the congregation, then he would certainly be responsible in some degree for the fact that they did not respond to God’s word. Again, this returns to the normal means by which God has ordained things to happen. God doesn’t typically override cause and effect; on the contrary, he uses cause and effect as a means of bringing things about—including responsibility. If someone preaches very badly, they are indeed responsible for that bad preaching. Therefore, inasmuch as that bad preaching causally influences the congregation to not respond to God’s word, God may hold the preacher responsible for their hardness. This isn’t to say we ought to become paranoid about preaching or evangelism and worry because people are not responding to us. God will judge justly the intentions of our hearts, and the measure of our efforts. But I believe I have made a strong case that, in the case of people who avoid all philosophical discourse in evangelism, he would be less pleased with their efforts than with people who try to engage in argumentation to the best of their ability, to defend their faith and show it to be true. Of course, if [i]all[/i] the latter group did was show that Christianity must be true without [i]also[/i] declaring the gospel itself, then certainly God would be more pleased with the former group! But I am not advocating this. I am advocating both.

[quote]So what do we do? Personally, I’d rather explain the truth of God and allow the recipient to make their own decision before God, even if they disagree with me. From your statements, it seems you’d say that I just failed. [/quote]

But the very [i]purpose[/i] of apologetics is to explain the truth of God; and all the apologist [i]can[/i] do is allow the recipient to make his own decision before God. I am not suggesting otherwise. What I am saying is that [i]merely[/i] proclaiming the gospel is [i]not sufficient[/i]. Again, I direct you to 1 Peter 3:15. What does Peter say? To always be prepared to make a defense, an apologia, an [i]apologetic[/i] to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you. What is the hope that is in us? The gospel. But what does Peter say we must do? Give a [i]defense of that hope[/i] to [i]anyone[/i] who asks! How many times in evangelism do you [i]not[/i] get asked that exact question? We proclaim the gospel, and people say, "What rubbish. Why would you believe that?" Peter does not say to [i]re-proclaim[/i] the gospel. He tells us to do the same thing Paul does: to argue, reason, persuade; to destroy their arguments and tear down the pretensions they have raised against God, taking every thought captive to obey Christ.

[quote]But what about those who don’t have the capacity to learn science and philosophy? Do they fail too? Even if they know the word well and use it well? [/quote]

Peter was not a learned man. He was a fisherman for crying out loud. Yet he certainly considered himself, and his entire audience, capable of giving a reasoned defense of the gospel. That certainly suggests that being a professor of philosophy, or an expert in science, is not a requirement of being an apologist. And, as I have said before, the [i]basic principles[/i] of biblical apologetics are something that even a child can learn. As you know we are expecting our first child any day now. By the time he or she is twelve years old, I would expect to be able to set a homework assignment of "Read Richard Dawkins’ [i]The God Delusion[/i] (or something similar) and write three thousand words refuting it from a biblical perspective." That is not an assignment too difficult for a sound-minded child. To me, your question is like asking, "what about those who don’t have the capacity to learn the whole book of Romans off by heart?" Well, Darryl, most people can’t! To those who can, I say: do! To those who can’t, I say: learn the vital summary passages!

[quote]What favours do I do if I win an argument? Are they less guilty before God if I explain the truth of God and leave it at that, than if I argue convincingly from science and philosophy? [/quote]

Actually yes; you have given them fewer and lower quality reasons to believe, so they are less guilty. They certainly [i]are[/i] still guilty—but they have less condemnation upon them than those who know fully the arguments in favor of Christianity, and reject them also. This refers back to my point above regarding our obligation to present a defense as best we can, and the "shared responsibility" we carry if we do not.

[quote]It is out of line to suggest that philosophy and science is necessary to evangelism. [/quote]

What do you mean by "necessary to evangelism"? If "giving a defense" is commanded in Scripture upon condition of being asked for a reason to believe, then apologetics most certainly [i]is[/i] necessary to evangelism, purely by fiat. However, if you mean that I am out of line in suggesting that philosophy or science is [i]always[/i] a necessary condition of conversion, you are quite correct—I would never suggest that!

[quote]Dominic – what do you do when you lose an intellectual argument? Do you rely on faith or do you base your faith on your ability to rationalize? What about those who don’t have the intellect you have? What do they stand on? [/quote]

The question is moot since I have never lost an argument in apologetics. How could I? I am not relying on my own intellect, but on God’s. You speak as if you think apologetics is divorced from the Bible, when in fact it is based on it. How could it be effective otherwise? Similarly, your question suggests that you think faith is not, in and of itself, rational. But it is. I do not rationalize my faith. I am rational because I have faith.

As regards your method of evangelism, I find no disagreement with it. I simply would say that it is almost certainly going to require a [i]defense[/i]. That is what apologetics is. It is the defense part of evangelism. It is the part we are [i]commanded in Scripture to do[/i]. Again, I don’t see that you have interacted in the slightest with the [i]biblical basis[/i] for my position, or the [i]biblical arguments[/i] I have given. You seem to simply have ignored them!

Regards,
Bnonn

Hey Rodney,
[quote]But if we started an evangelistic conversation using your completely correct and reasonable (for us anyway) nutshell evangelistic technique, only to find no resulting change in heart and instead they asked questions about creation/the reliability of the scriptures/evolution or whatever, would you then walk away and not try to address such questions?[/quote]
That depends on where the person is coming from. If they are asking questions and trying to clarify what I’m saying I have no problems engaging with them. However, if they are just arguing to uphold their world view or to try and disrupt mine, I see little point in engaging in such a discussion.

Dominic,
The reason I dont respond to every argument you make is that 1) there are simply too many, so I pick off the ones I think are highest value given the time I have and 2) I dont disagree with all of them, so I dont engage on all of them. I realise this makes it hard for you to know what I do and do not agree with, but I can only do my best with the time I have. Its worth noting that many of your comments are longer than my posts and require considerable time to read, consider and respond to – to respond to them all would require in many cases an even longer comment. [b]Perhaps you could be more concise?[/b]

Reading through both your comments above, one thing stands out to me:

From comment 1:
[quote]So when an unbeliever says, "Why should I believe that the Bible is the word of God; I don’t even believe in God!" it is far more likely that God will work through a philosophical argument which directly addresses the question than through a response which simply quotes Scripture[/quote]

From comment 2:
[quote]If someone has an overriding philosophical framework of beliefs which precludes belief in God, then by definition that framework functions as a sufficient cause to prevent faith. We should not, therefore, ordinarily expect that God overcome this sufficient cause by abandoning the normal operation of things. Rather, he will overcome it through the normal means, which is to philosophically demonstrate that the framework of beliefs is unjustified. [/quote]

I disagree with this reasoning. God can and does overcome it through scripture. In fact, Ian Wishart explains that this is exactly what happened to him. In fact in his case he explains: [quote]"I eventually became a Christian – initially on pure faith alone because it went against what I perceived to be the credible evidence against it"[/quote]

God can and does save people in spite of what they believe reality to be. This is also my own experience. I was saved from a completely opposing world view by simply reading the Bible. It was not through clever reasoning or someone pulling my world view apart that I was saved, rather it was by the Spirit of God convicting me of the truth of the words of Christ and my need to submit to them. That is to say – the word of God tore right through my world view in a few short verses and transformed my mind.

[quote]he will overcome it through the normal means[/quote]
Explain to me what "normal" is. Conversion is not a "normal" thing as I understand it – it is a supernatural thing – and as such is not restricted by "normal means" in any sense of the word.

Thus, God can and does work on a persons heart if He chooses to do so regardless of their world view or preclusions. The question of conversion is not one of human will, but of God working (John 1:13, 1 Peter 1:3, Romans 9:16).

There are two questions for us to consider here – what is my responsibility? And what is the responsibility of the one listening?

My responsibility is to give a reason – as you say 1 Peter 3:15 says. However, this does not [u]require[/u] that I do so from science or philosophy. You may be called to defend scripture, but I may not be. I am called to be a witness of the gospel (as are we all) – which does not require the use of science or philosophy (although it may be useful on occaision). My defense could be based on what the Lord has revealed about Himself to me. It could be based on the observations I see in the world around me that I see ratified in the Bible. There are many reasons why I have this hope in me, but the primary reason is because God convicted me of the soundness of His word.

The responsibility of the one who I talk with is to respond. I cannot make them do this – regardless of how well reasoned I may be.

[quote]I have never lost an argument in apologetics. How could I? I am not relying on my own intellect, but on God’s. You speak as if you think apologetics is divorced from the Bible, when in fact it is based on it. How could it be effective otherwise?[/quote]
Good for you – I wish I had that level of success. I’ve lost arguments in science and philosophy. Some people know things that I don’t know and I don’t always know how to counter that at the time. But regardless, while I may not understand all the things in the world, I know that the word of God is true, and regardless of how "sound" mans reasoning may sound to me, it is only mans reasoning and the Word of God is God’s view and can be trusted implicitly.

If you still disagree, perhaps you’d like to state your view clearly and concisely for us to consider?

Rodney,
If there is any question in my mind about the motives of the other person, I probably would talk further with them.
However, most of the time I find it pretty obvious what the persons attitude is, and feel that my time is often better spent elsewhere than engaging in a debate with them.
Feel free to keep doing what you are doing – I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t

Hey Darryl. I’m sorry about the length of my comments. I do find it difficult to condense what I want to say—I’ll try to be briefer from now on. I also want to remind you of the high regard in which I hold you, lest I come across as over-bearing. If I seem obstreperous, it is only because I care

In pursuit of my objective of brevity, I think we should leave aside these questions regarding how the Holy Spirit will and will not work. They are more speculative than biblical, and I think we should stick to the scriptural directives and evidence rather than going off on tangents, however sensible they may seem. As you have said, the Spirit can work [i]despite[/i] philosophical commitments, as in your own conversion; or, as I have said, he can work [i]with[/i] them, as in the case of mine. So let me leave that aside, and try to get to the heart of the matter—

[quote]My responsibility is to give a reason – as you say 1 Peter 3:15 says. However, this does not require that I do so from science or philosophy. You may be called to defend scripture, but I may not be. I am called to be a witness of the gospel (as are we all) – which does not require the use of science or philosophy (although it may be useful on occaision). My defense could be based on what the Lord has revealed about Himself to me. [b]It could be based on the observations I see in the world around me that I see ratified in the Bible.[/b] There are many reasons why I have this hope in me, but the primary reason is because God convicted me of the soundness of His word. [/quote]

Notice the part of your quote which I have bolded. Would these reasons, these observations you have made which are ratified in Scripture, not constitute arguments from science? If you are interested in archeology, for instance, you could make various arguments for the authenticity of Scripture based on archeological evidence. Archeology is a scientific discipline. Or if you were a biologist, you could argue from what you knew of biology and relate it to Genesis, perhaps. Again, this would be a [i]scientific argument[/i].

On the other hand, perhaps in nature you just see the obvious signs of a creator. Perhaps you would appeal to this, and point to Psalm 19. But then would be making a version of the teleological argument, which is certainly a very venerable [i]philosophical argument[/i] for God’s existence. Or again, you could point to the obvious fact that all things have causes, so the universe must also have a cause—which is the cosmological argument.

I’d like to offer a challenge to you, which I hope will clarify my own position in this matter, and perhaps reveal if we are talking at cross purposes to each other: in giving a defense for the hope that is in you, can you think of a single one "based on the observations I see in the world around me that I see ratified in the Bible" which would [i]not[/i] be a scientific or philosophical argument? If so, what would it be? If not, then what is the difficulty you have with using philosophical and scientific arguments?

Regards,
Bnonn

[quote]The concern I have is that many apologists … think that their way is the only way[/quote]

This is a straw man argument Darryl – I don’t know of any apologist who thinks using science and philosophy is the ONLY way to evangelise. It is obvious to anyone in fellowship with other believers that we all have come to faith via different means, different circumstances and different workings of the Spirit – that’s simply a given.

It’s really important not to confuse sufficiency with necessity – apologetics is [b]NEVER[/b] sufficient – something we agree on, but sometimes it [b]IS[/b] necessary. It’s that simple.

[quote]This is a straw man argument Darryl – I don’t know of any apologist who thinks using science and philosophy is the ONLY way to evangelise.[/quote]
I didn’t state that all apologists think this way – I used the word many – and perhaps [i]many seem to think this way[/i] would have been more accurate.

My original post on the subject was a warning that it is easy to fall back on science and philosophy [i]instead of[/i] telling people the simple good news – and doing so in the belief that this is evangelism – when they have not talked about faith in Christ at all. Sometimes it is easier to argue a few points than it is to explain the truth simply so that they are without excuse.

[quote]Not that it doesn’t happen, and not that apologists don’t sometimes over-emphasize apologetics; certainly some of them become too caught up with "winning arguments" and lose sight of the gospel itself[/quote]
This is exactly my point and exactly what I’m concerned about. There is more than the odd comment bandied about on the apologist forums that point to a trend of this sort of thing. We need to be very sure that we are arguing for the right things and that we focus the discussion where it needs to go rather than just trying to show that we have a better answer. The issue is not winning the arguments but the winning of souls.

[quote]Does this help to clarify anything?[/quote]
I think both of you are, in principle, in agreement with my sentiments.

Some of the discussion I’ve seen on apologetics forums seem to imply that apologists have their own agenda or their own cause that they are working toward. Some seem to sell the Word of God and the work of God short favouring intellectual arguments to solve a spiritual problem.

So long as we keep things in perspective, I think apologetics has a very valuable contribution to make to believers and to the world – but not at the expense of the authority and inerancy of the Word of God or the work of Christ..