TRANSCRIPT 🔗
BEAR Apologetics: When we're questioned as to why we believe in God, we should have an answer. But where should that explanation begin? Today we're comparing five major approaches to evangelical apologetics. Is this something Christians can disagree on? It's just what I've always heard. ⁓ Welcome to Bear Apologetics, where we seek truth with biblical evidence and reasoning. In the previous episode we discussed the role of apologetics. While apologetics deals with the defense of the faith, I want us to see it in the light of evangelism and witnessing. So in this episode, we're going focus on the five major approaches: the classical, the evidential, presuppositional, reformed epistemology, and the cumulative case. And we're going to break down each one and identify the possible biblical parallels that go with those and consider each one's strengths and weaknesses. As we use it to evangelize and witness to those around us. But I do want to clarify first and foremost that these labels that we have are just modern organization strategies. The biblical writers didn't call themselves classical, evidential, and so on apologists, but scripture contains patterns that resemble the parts of these methods. But we also shouldn't force every biblical conversation into some type of like philosophical category. So the approaches differ depending on the starting point. Now, by that I mean that it's how you understand the unbelievers' knowledge of God or the nature of their question. All five of these are practical, all five of these are useful, but we got to know where to start and how to use them. Now, a strength in one setting, picking one particular style, may be a weakness when that approach is either overstated, used mechanically, or used in the wrong setting. So the question is not really which one of these approaches is the best, but it's more which does each one of these methods help us see, and where does it require caution when we're using these? So as we go through this entire concept, make sure we truly understand the methods, our tools, and frameworks. These are not substitute for scripture, the gospel, wisdom, prayer. Or our dependence on the Holy Spirit to guide us in the witnessing process. First and foremost, we have classical apologetics. This is the philosophical evidential approach. So a classic apologist commonly uses two step approach. ⁓ it first establishes that God exists by identifying him by his attributes. Then it moves into a historical truth of Christianity, especially the persons, the claims, the miracles, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We demonstrate this classical approach by asking if the universe, morality, reason, order, consciousness, if that points to something beyond themselves, we also use that argument to establish there is a creator who transcends all of creation and is necessary, intelligent, moral, and personal. Then from there, once you've established a necessary being, the greatest uncreated creature, we move from general theism to specific claims of Christianity. We argue that Jesus' identity and his resurrection provides the confirmation for the Christian message. So being very careful not to leave it in the hands of the hearer of what we're talking about in any kind of broad spectrum belief in God, but who the one true God is. And then with this, here are the arguments. There are different subdivisions, if you will, that we can talk about through this line of argumentation or this line of witnessing, ⁓ talking about the universe and everything that was formed from the beginning, that's a cosmological argument. We have the teleological or the design argument, which specifies that because there is order and fine tuning in all these things that we see, that points towards an intelligence of some sort. We have the moral arguments which Where there's ⁓ moral duties and values, and where those are really grounded, where the best source of those come from. Is it from within ourselves or from an objective source outside of ourselves? The ontological arguments are certain forms of reasons that reason from the concept that there is a maximally great or a necessary being in creation that divides it all. And there's arguments from reason or consciousness, ⁓ where we get our rational thoughts from, our intentionality. And that we can't just explain some things like these with strict materialism. You can't measure that with science. Now, in classical apologetics, we want to talk about the creation, what it was, what it is, God's nature being shown through that. And we see some arguments, like in Acts 14, Paul and Barabbas, they point to creation for God providing everything for us and the joy that we have provided from. The living God. And then Paul moves on in chapter 17 to the creator and sustainer of all people in the judgment and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now, these passages are not formal presentations of every latter type of classical argument, but they do move from the created order and shared human experience toward the one true God. And then, like we mentioned, Acts 17 goes further into very specific Christ's resurrection. The universe simply exists. Morality is a preference. Human reason is a product of survival. This is an argument given by atheists, agnostics, humanists, secularists. And we this is a great example of where classical apologetics would be a great way to witness or evangelize. We explain to them by asking questions. A classical response is Ask whether contingent reality really explains itself. Can morality really exist? Can evil really exist without a standard beyond what we think, what we can imagine, what we can understand? And whether this unguided survival mode that's put forth by evolutionists, does that alone give us a reasonable truth to follow? So does it make more sense that there's something above and beyond us that created all of us that we're attaining to? Or do we decide everything that's about us? Do we decide
Load full transcript
our own morality? So the conversation from there moves on to theism. The conversation from there moves from just general theism to specific historical claims about Jesus Christ. Strengths of the classical approach. It provides a clear logical sequence from God, just theism, to specific Christianity. It engages the foundational questions about existence, morality, reason, and order. It exposes the explanatory limits of atheism and those who don't believe in a God of some sort or believe in scientism, materialism, and so on and so forth. It actually helps us understand that those things in itself cannot explain all the things that are going on around us, metaphysically, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, that there's something outside of that. It shows us that belief in God is intellectually serious rather than arbitrary. It's not just a crutch that we use. It's a necessary belief. And it can create common ground with people that are willing to discuss philosophy. So even though you have someone who may not believe in Christianity, you're not believing God at all, that philosophical argument of is there a God? Does there need to be a God? What are the limitations of not having a God versus having a God? That can draw certain people into an intellectual conversation. And while we know that intellectual arguments do not bring anyone to the saving grace of Jesus Christ, we know it can bring them to question more and then for them to search and for the Holy Spirit to prompt questions in their heart and draw them to God. So we use it as a catalyst, not as a means. Now there are some weaknesses, however, we have to watch out for, being very careful. That if we're not careful and we're proving the cosmos we're created by something or there is a God, we might stop short on accident and just have them believe in general theism and not get to the one true God and the gospel of Jesus Christ and who He is. Some of these terms can be highly abstract and inaccessible to many lay people. Speaking of the philosophy aspect of that, we don't want to get too far. ⁓ down in the weeds, if you will, with big language, or try to sound more ⁓ intelligent than we really are sometimes. We want to make sure we keep it very simple. But when you're talking about the cosmos and ⁓ all that's going on in the universe, the fine tuning, the scientific things behind it, theories, laws, we can get a little too high in our understanding. We need to be very careful about that. ⁓ many people treat human reason and logic above God's revelation through scripture. So many times we get to arguing the fine points of creation, the fine points of science, and we forget the revelation that Scripture has. Again, pointing them to creation in the universe doesn't necessarily point them to God. And finally, the individual arguments remain debated. That they're they rarely really compel every reasonable person. They may get them part of the way, you may have a a good conversation. But we don't rely
on that to completely pacify any question they may have. There's still going to be some ⁓ ideas and some things they don't believe in and that can be debated continuously. But classical arguments may be able to clear that intellectual ground, but they can never be left alone without naming the one true God. Our destination in all of this. Has to be God revealed in Jesus Christ. That leads us to our second type of apologetic approach, the evidential apologetics. This is a historical evidence approach. This is for you history buffs out there. All right. This focused heavily on the public availability facts and evidence. Everything that's available out there from research papers, maps, written scrolls from scribes, all those things. It argues directly for Christianity by examining all those historical things, including miracles, the prophecies in the Bible, resurrection, archaeology, and so on and so forth. It uses that testimony and it emphasizes the factual basis of the claims of Christianity. So we in this approach, we're taking all those things that were written, ⁓ when they were written, ⁓ who wrote them, things outside the Bible and scripture that Collaborate with the Bible and corroborate all the stories, the names. Some wonderful research is being done now with specific names done from the New Testament and showing how they match up with actual historical narratives from other parts of history and other writings. Now, when we're going through this, make sure that we understand this is how we would approach it. It would involve any kind of claim that's open to historical or factual investigation. So anything at all, ⁓ the transmission of the gospels, where did they come from? Who wrote them? How old are they? What's our oldest manuscript? Those kind of things. Those are things we can look at in a historical manner. Where certain cities were, people live, things like that. It establishes relevant data using the acceptable methods, the historical methods, other forms of evidence, scientific methods. It it's used really, this doesn't get too supernatural. It stays in the area of things we had tangibly that we can touch, hold, see, and study. Then it compares the naturalistic and Christian explanations of that data, especially with prophecies. How did Daniel know this 300 years before this happened, and so on and so forth? And finally it argues that the Christian explanation best accounts for all of the evidence we see around. So the Bible being a historical book to some degree, writing narratives. How did they know things that happened beforehand? They wrote down things that we didn't learn until sometimes over a millennium later. And so we used that and explained it. Well, it was God revealing these things, God showing these things, and that's what makes the most sense to me. And that is why I believe. Well, here's some topics that might come up. ⁓ some of the evidential topics that are very important to look at. Jesus, did he exist? His crucifixion? The appearances he had, why the disciples truly were transformed and changed and believed the resurrection, many of them unto death. The conversions of Saul, later Paul and James, the brother of Jesus, to people that should have never been converted if this wasn't true. ⁓ reliability of the transformation to biblical text, archaeology, background, all those things come into it, ⁓ fulfill a scripture, scientific evidence and and testimony demonstrating that the Christian faith is The best explanation, even backed up by historical data. So in the Bible parallels in this, we see actually Bible writers don't treat the gospel as private ideas detached from history. They repeatedly connect Christian beliefs to events, to witnesses, signs, and fulfilled promises. We see those examples here, the investigations that Luke did when he wrote Luke and Acts. Paul lists all the appearances. Thomas, doubting Thomas, talks about, you know, touching, seeing, getting up proof of his own doubt in an evidence form. And then Peter appealing to everything that Jesus did in the Gospels when he was giving his testimony. So we look at these things, and these are the historical arguments that we can make in similar sum are also summarized there by some of the writers of the New Testament. Now there's some great strengths. With this evidential type of approach. It keeps Christianity rooted in the historical instead of the spiritual. And we know that our relationship with Jesus is by faith. It's not a facts-based system. But when you're dealing with an unbeliever, that's the first common ground we can often find is: hey, the Bible is true in this aspect. The Bible is true in this aspect. Therefore, we can lead to ⁓ pretty good evidence that the Bible is true in other areas too, and tests their willingness and let the Holy Spirit do his work. It gives very concrete answers to concrete objections. ⁓ one of the great examples, and I won't go into too much detail because we're doing a summary today, but like ⁓ is the Bible, was it written like a telephone game? Or is it really these Bibles been copied over and over and over and over again? No, but many people believe that's too Case. Many people believe that the translations from different languages or different versions just come off another Bible. And so therefore we've really messed it up along the way. But this can give historical data and proof and demonstrate false, falsifiable claims and verify verifiable claims. ⁓ it keeps the facts first and foremost in front of everything. It strengthens believers, not just unbelievers, that maybe fear Christianity has no factual basis. Or many Christians will watch something or read something and say, is that true? I I heard that this is the case, and that's not what my preacher was always or I was always taught, or what I thought I read. Well, then we can strengthen their faith by saying, ⁓ well, matter of fact, let me show you some historical data that backs up what
we're saying. And then finally, it communicates with people who value history and science. The investigation process is there. And and make them come into the conversation, the intellectuals that might not come to a conversation when you're talking about faith and values and morality. So another way to gain entrance into witnessing. Again, here's a argument. Resurrection stories are legends that grew over time. That's a very, very common objection to the gospels. Make sure we understand fully that everyone comes to every conversation, every argument. With some kind of preconceived idea of what's true. So everyone has the same evidence for everything we see, taste, touch, and read, but sometimes our prior beliefs actually help us interpret things. So we don't necessarily interpret things the way an unbeliever might. So being careful that we're not trying to force our perspective, just demonstrate that it makes sense. I'm historical arguments, they establish a probability. It's but nothing's a hundred percent certain. Nothing can be proved one hundred percent certain, especially in the realm of historical or scientific explanation. We get to the greatest probability, the high level of probability that we can establish the facts. We can never prove anything a hundred percent to that degree. ⁓ apologists may exaggerate, unfortunately, when we're when we're dealing with these things, we might exaggerate our cases. We can say that, ⁓ everything's been found this way and that way archaeologically, or scientifically, everything in the Bible is this and this and that and so much, or we have thousands upon thousands of manuscripts. And while those claims may be partially true and may be ninety-nine percent accurate, we sometimes over exaggerate to get a point across and we can cause more damage than help when those things are tested. Very careful when we're talking historically. ⁓ a case can become too dependent. on disputed details or the latest headline that just came out, the latest scientific discovery. So we need to make sure within reason that we're carefully deducing all the evidence, carefully reading, and carefully checking the facts and speaking of facts, even if you can convince somebody that the Bible is inerrant in its historical accounts, in its and everything it talks about as a narrative, that will not by itself produce repentance. And a love for God. Now, evidence matters because Christianity makes historical claims, but evidence serves the truth. It cannot become the authority over God's revelation. Now, presuppositional arguments, this apologetic, it's a world-based approach, well, worldview-based approach, rather. It begins with the revelation that God is the necessary foundation for all knowledge. It argues that no one reasons from complete neutrality. It's making sure that people understand that we all have a worldview. But this approach shows that the unbelieving worldviews, no matter what they are, religious or not, they borrow from
God's truth. So we look through the logic, morality, dignity, order, meaning of life, all those things, and then We examine logic and morality, where they came from, the purpose of life, the order, dignity, and we demonstrate that those come from God and that the Christian worldview is the best way that makes reality understandable and intelligent because there is one creator who created all things and put it all together for us. Well, with the line of reasoning, we ask what assumptions the person's Bringing to this conversation? Evidence, morality, reason, human knowledge. What what do they understand about that? Where does it come from? What's the relevance? We show that every worldview has a commitment foundationally that cannot be proved by scientific method or from neutrality, that we have our slants towards what we already believe. Then we test whether the unbelieving worldview can account for these tools that it's using, such as logic. Induction, moral obligations, personal dignity. The scientific method itself cannot account for those things. It can only measure things that are material and historical to a certain degree, but it cannot measure the moral, logic, induction, those things. Then we present the Christian worldview as the necessary or best foundation for the intelligible experience that we have here on That the reason we can measure morality, the reason that we have an understanding of the purpose of life or that humans' life is valuable is because it is within us from a creator. So here's a list of some questions that we can ask, some presuppositional questions to talk to them about. On what basis do you trust human reason? Where do you get it from? What makes the laws of logic universal and binding? How does your worldview ground objective moral duties? Who is right, who was wrong, and why? Can you always back that up in every case? All these questions and many more can open up the conversation to demonstrate that this is where I have my grounding at. And this is why I believe what I believe. We see this example given in the Bible in a couple of places. Remembering that the text here on the screen and more in the Bible, they support the central presuppositional thoughts, especially ⁓ regarding the authority of Revelation. But you see here in the writings of Paul, Solomon, Luke, and Matthew, there are questions asked to ⁓ Make them understand the assumptions in Matthew about who the Messiah is, explaining that knowledge and understanding and truth all comes from God. Now, again, we understand that unbelievers don't rely on the Bible. They won't see Scripture and say, ⁓ I didn't know that. Now I understand the truth. But this shows them where our authority comes from. And we point to Scripture as the basis for all things through. All types of these argumentations or these witnesses or these ⁓ times that we have to witness to other people. Now, here's an example of a type of argument that would call for presuppositional response.
Only beliefs proven by science are rational. And while I cover that briefly, ⁓ that claim itself can't be proven by science. And then what assumptions in the first place make science possible? And why should anyone's induction be trusted? Many things can't can't be tested, proven. Moral laws, the meaning and purpose of life, the existence of other minds outside of ourselves, logical laws, the scientific method itself can't test itself. So the goal here is to reveal that the objection rests on unproven philosophical commitments, that not everything can be proven by science. Not everything is tastable, testable. You can't see all things, you can't handle all things, you can't recreate or reproduce events in many cases. So we have this presuppositional response saying that your assumptions that science rules all overall is not actually true. There are other ways that we can receive revelation or truth and understanding than just science. There's some great strengths that we see. We see that this presuppositional approach, it takes the authority of Scripture and the effects of sin very seriously. That's the reason we have a fallen world. This is the reason that these things are happening. It recognizes that everything that we see and do is interpreted within our our own worldview. And also, when you ask the right questions in the right manner, it exposes the hidden assumptions. Instead of debating these claims endlessly, I've had conversations with people that went on and on and it kind of kind of argued circularly until you realize, well, their assumption is that this is accurate. I had one person one time share with me that when I we talked about the moral laws and the mind, they said, Well, I think one day we'll find a scientific explanation. One day we'll find it. Okay, well, we don't have that yet. Isn't there any possibility somewhere else? No, it's science, only science. So in that case, we realize that this person just does not want to believe. We talked about other things instead, but that claim could have went on and on and reasoned without understanding that person's assumption was that science is the end-all be all. It also connects apologetics to logic, morality, meaning, dignity, and knowledge. These are things that a lot of people want to talk about. What is the purpose of life? Why am I here? What is right and wrong and why? And it keeps the Christian worldview. Rather than producing and providing a generic God. So presuppositional apologetics focuses specifically on the God of the Bible, using scripture as a great strength. And again, however, as I mentioned previously, just because we produce scripture or talk about scripture doesn't mean someone's going to change their mind and don't be surprised when they don't. Now, there are some things to be careful with when we're trying to argue presuppositionally. ⁓ this can become circular reasoning if the authority is not completely understood and explained from both sides. There's a lot of technical language about the ⁓ understanding of knowledge, epistemology, ⁓ transcendental arguments, you know, things outside of ourselves, morality and so on. And then all the talk about worldviews can be very confusing. And so we can get caught in the ⁓ the wheat and unimportant things in this type of conversation. Sometimes This produces very combative or dismissive conversations. ⁓ we see this in debates a lot, and this is my biggest problem with debates, especially between Christians and other Christians regarding a view of the Bible in some way, that sometimes they get very hostile and we cannot win an argument. And I don't mean when to make us better. I mean when to show who God is. If we're not gentle and kind and loving, we we push people away. So, Well, there's a lot of things going on and you're pointing to scripture in this type of evangelism or witnessing. Sometimes they're talking about the beliefs and where your belief systems come from can get very, very ⁓ difficult to keep a level head. It may also underuse the historical evidence that scripture shows. So it heavily relies on scripture to make our world viewpoint, but then sometimes when we're talking about the historical data and things that are happening, we don't point back to the Bible enough. And then finally, it can be difficult to show why the Christian worldview, whether rather than another religious worldview, is better than another without being very cautious in how we bring up scripture and specific evidences. So while I said it does rely on rely on scripture quite a bit, when you get caught up in the other parts of the argument, we forget scripture, and that can sound like basic religion around the world and where morality comes from and so on and so forth. So the presuppositional apologetics reminds us that no one comes into a conversation neutral, but it challenges and it exposes foundations while not neglecting the evidence and clarity and gentleness if it's done properly and correctly. And that looks like a great place for right now to end this episode. We'll catch you next week with the conclusion of the five apologetic approaches. Until then, God bless you and keep seeking truth with biblical evidence and reasoning.