This will be a geeky post. Try to stay focused
Recently, I have been writing on topics pertaining to apologetic methodology. My primary purpose is to sharpen our personal thinking in the matters of apologetic exegesis and theology. I want to make sure we are defending the faith accurately, as well as engaging unbelief effectively.
I approach the subject of apologetics as a presuppositionalist. Like I have previously noted, most Christians who fancy the subject of apologetics operate in the matrix of classical/evidentialist apologetics. That apologetic methodology is the most popular among the average church-going, red state evangelical Christian.
Proponents of the classical approach generally have a disdain toward presuppositionalism. Their blog articles and lectures will often times offer withering critiques, attempting to show how presuppositionalism is “illogical,” or “blind fideism,” or other such terrible descriptors. I personally believe it is important to offer a response to those criticisms, so I wish to demonstrate how my apologetic theology is not only biblical, but also robust.
The Circular Objection
One of the more common objections claims that a presuppositional defense of Scripture is circular.
Consider the following illustration I copied from a pro-classic apologetic blog post:
The picture supposedly illustrates just how illogical a presuppositional defense of Scripture truly is. A presuppositional will claim, for instance, that the Bible is infallible. When asked to prove his assertion, he will respond by saying, “It’s infallible because the Bible is the Word of God.” But when asked “How do you KNOW the Bible is the Word of God?,” he answers by saying, “Because the Bible tells us so!” When asked why he believes the Bible to begin with, he responds by saying, “Because the Bible is infallible!” And so on and so on, around and around.
Underneath the picture at the blog article, the author writes, “This kind of argument is not the kind of “apologia” mentioned in scripture. God always backed Himself up with evidence.”
See what terrible thinkers presuppositionalists truly are? Shake my head. If they give that ridiculous response to their local community college social studies teacher when asked why they reject same-sex marriage, they’ll embarrass Jesus and make Aristotle weep tears of sadness.
Let’s evaluate that objection and offer some comments in response.
— 1. Classical apologists have a bad habit of avoiding biblical authority.
I have always been troubled with how classic apologists will intentionally avoid biblical authority. The inconsistency here is jarring. Christian apologists, who are intending to make a case for the Christian faith, who in point of fact derive their faith from the Bible, ignore its authority when engaging unbelievers. They insist any appeal to Scripture’s authority in a discussion is circular. I truly don’t get that.
Now. Maybe there are some traditional classicists who would object to my concern. They are not dismissing the Bible at all, but are, as the author noted under the picture, wanting to back up their appeals to Scriptural authority with evidence. The Bible, however, is evidence, is it not? It’s an established historical document. Why isn’t that fact good enough? It would be like saying we can’t appeal to the letters of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams when discussing the American Revolution without first showing evidence that the two men wrote those letters.
— 2. In case you don’t know this, pretty much everyone argues in a circle.
That statement may cause my classical detractors to fall face down on a fainting couch, but I believe I’m correct with my assessment. That’s because everyone assumes (or *ahem* presupposes) the truthfulness of some unquestioned, unspoken starting point.
Michael Kruger, in his insightful discussion about the sufficiency of Scripture in apologetics, writes in a footnote about so-called circularity as it pertains to the meter stick,
To deny circularity when it comes to an ultimate authority is to subject oneself to an infinite regress of reasons. If a person holds to a certain view, A , then when A is challenged he appeals to reasons B and C . But, of course, B and C will certainly be challenged as to why they should be accepted, and then the person would have to offer D, E, F, and G as arguments for B and C. And the process goes on and on.
Obviously it has to stop somewhere because an infinite regress of arguments cannot demonstrate the truth of one’s conclusions. Thus, every worldview (and every argument) must have an ultimate, unquestioned, self-authenticating starting point.
Another example: imagine someone asking you whether the meter stick in your house was actually a meter long. How would you demonstrate such a thing? You could take it to your next-door neighbor and compare it to his meter stick and say, “See, it’s a meter.” However, the next question is obvious, “How do we know your neighbor’s meter stick is really a meter?” This process would go on and on infinitely unless there were an ultimate meter stick (which, if I am not mistaken, actually existed at one time and was measured by two fine lines marked on a bar of platinum-iridium alloy). It is this ultimate meter stick that defines a meter. When asked how one knows whether the ultimate meter stick is a meter, the answer is obviously circular: the ultimate meter stick is a meter because it is a meter.
This same thing is true for Scripture. The Bible does not just happen to be true (the meter stick in your house), rather it is the very criterion for truth (the ultimate meter stick) and therefore the final stopping point in intellectual justification.
Just like trusting that your meter stick is really a meter, the simple point is that everyone argues in a circle to some degree. The issue is whether or not that circle is a vicious circle, or one that is self-refuting. In the case of Scripture, I don’t believe that saying the Word of God is infallible, because it is the Word of God, is a vicious, self-refuting circular argument. The reason being is that God’s Word is, well, God’s Word. He is an infallible God and He spoke it, hence it is God’s infallible Word.
— 3. The circular objection as presented in that illustration is a strawman.
Strawman arguments are usually considered illogical the last time I checked, but I digress.
The Christian believes the Bible is God’s Word not because the Bible alone tells us so (though that should be enough), but because God revealed the Bible. We know that, obviously, from the Bible itself, but Jesus also confirmed the Scriptures as God’s Word, as did the prophets and apostles. Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles are historical, real life people. Jesus was, in fact, the very Son of God sent by the Father. He affirmed the Word of God without first appealing to outside lines of evidence establishing it as the Word of God. I’m inclined to take Him at His Word alone.
— 4. Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles never proved the Bible’s authority with their audience first.
In all of their preaching and teaching, the prophets, the apostles, and Jesus Christ Himself, proclaimed the Bible as authoritative from the outset. They never proved it’s authority with external evidence, first.
Take for instance Paul’s missionary journeys recorded in the book of Acts. Initially, Paul went to the Jews who were scattered about in the various towns along his missionary journey. However, the Jews rejected the Gospel message and turned him away. In some cases, they persecuted him. Eventually, Paul turned exclusively to the gentiles, who were already inclined to hear his message of salvation. Acts 13:46ff states,
46 Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
47 “For so the Lord has commanded us, ‘I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES, THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.’”
48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
Note a couple of important points. First, Paul told the Jews that he wanted to speak to them the Word of God first, but since they rejected it, he and his friends were turning to the gentiles. In other words, Paul was taking that “word of God” to the gentiles.
Now a question. How did the gentiles of Asia Minor know what Paul told them was the Word of God? Honestly? How familiar were they with the OT history of Israel? With the prophetic promises of the Messiah? The fulfillment of those prophecies in the person and work of Jesus? Did Paul have to convince them first with lines of evidence that the Word of God was worthy of their consideration? It certainly doesn’t look that way. In fact, all Paul did was to preach it and they believed it.
Secondly, notice that belief in the authority of the Word of God was a spiritual matter. Verse 48 states that when Paul changed his plans, the gentiles rejoiced, glorifying the Word of the Lord, and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. In other words, their acceptance of God’s Word was not due to Paul’s presentation of compelling lines of textual evidence or historical proofs. They were appointed to eternal life and God’s Spirit worked in their hearts to believe.
Now I can hear my objectors saying, “but Paul was giving them the Gospel, not telling them to believe the Bible!” But where exactly is the Gospel message found? Where is it presented? Why in the pages of Scripture of course.
As I close, I don’t want the reader to go away thinking that I reject the idea of presenting evidence to an unbeliever in an apologetic encounter. If you have been following my series, you know I am equally critical of other presuppositionalists who turn apologetic encounters into repetitious slogans and the appeals to the laws of logic and what not. I want to provide non-biblical answers to challenging questions if necessary. When textual evidence or intelligent design style proofs come up to further along the discussion, I will certainly engage that information. There is no special protocol that is violated if a presuppositionalist appeals to evidence when evangelizing.
What needs to be kept in mind is that I am not giving up my commitment to God’s Word as my ultimate authority. I proclaim it as established fact, even though I know the unbeliever will insist on proofs as to why he must believe it. The reason being is because it is the Word of God alone that contains the Gospel which in turn is the power of God unto salvation.