|
|
| |
|
| by Editor Erik Wait |
| |
 |
| |
The central declaration and challenge of Christian apologetics is expressed by Paul’s rhetorical question, “Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Corinthians 1:20). Critical attacks which are leveled against the Christian faith in the world of thought cannot be met by piece-meal replies (such as the incremental approaches of Classical and Evidential Apologetics.) and appeals to emotion. In the long run the believer must respond to the onslaught of the unbeliever by attacking the unbeliever’s position at its foundations. He must challenge the unbeliever’s presuppositions, asking whether knowledge is even possible, given the non-Christian’s assumptions and perspective. The Christian cannot forever be defensively constructing atomistic answers to the endless variety of unbelieving criticisms; he must take the offensive and show the unbeliever that he has no intelligible place to stand, no consistent epistemology, no justification for meaningful discourse, predication, or argumentation. The pseudo-wisdom of the world must be reduced to foolishness - in which case none of the unbeliever’s criticisms have any force.
If we are to understand how to answer the fool, if we are to be able to demonstrate that God has made the pseudo-wisdom of the world foolish, then we must first study the biblical conception of the fool and his foolishness.
In scriptural perspective the fool is not basically a shallow-minded or illiterate ignoramus; he can be quite educated and sophisticated in social reckoning. However, he is a fool because he has forsaken the source of true wisdom in God in order to rely on his own (allegedly), self-sufficient, intellectual powers. He is unteachable (Proverbs 10:8) and despises instruction (Proverbs. 15:5); whereas the wise man heeds counsel given to him, “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes” (Proverbs 12:15). The fool has utter self-confidence and imagines himself to be intellectually autonomous. “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool” (Proverbs 28:26). A fool cannot think of himself as mistaken (Proverbs 17:10). He judges matters according to his own pre-established standards of truth and right, and thus his own thoughts always turn out in the long run to be correct. The fool is sure that he can on his own rational authority and intellectual scrutiny. “The fool beareth himself insolently and is confident” (Proverbs 14:16), and therefore he utters his own mind (Proverbs. 29:11).
In actuality, this autonomous man is dull, stubborn, boorish, obstinate and stupid. He professes himself to be wise, but from the opening of his mouth it is clear that he is (in the biblical sense) “a fool” - his only wisdom would consist in keeping silent (Proverbs 17:28). “...the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness” (Proverbs 12:23)., and the fool flaunts his folly (Proverbs 13:16). He eats up folly unreflectingly (Proverbs 15:14), pours it out (Proverbs 15:2), and returns to it like a dog to his vomit (Proverbs. 26:11). He is so in love with his folly and so dedicated to its preservation that “it is better for a man to meet a bear robbed of her whelps, than a fool in his folly.” (Proverbs 17:12). The fool really does not want to find the truth; he only wants to be self-justified in his own imaginations. While he may feign objectivity, “A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself” (Proverbs 18:2). He is committed to his own presuppositions and wishes to guard his autonomy. Thus he will not depart from evil (Proverbs 13:19), and thus all his knowledgeable talk reveals nothing but perverse and lying lips (Proverbs 10:18; 19:1). He may talk proudly, but “A fool's mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul” (Proverbs 18:7). He shall not endure the judgment of God (Psalm 5:5).
How does a man become such a self-deluded, allegedly autonomous, fool? A fool despises wisdom and instruction, refusing to begin his thinking with reverence toward the Lord (Proverbs 1:7). He rejects God’s commandments (Proverbs 10:8) and even dares to reproach the Almighty (Psalm 74:22; Job 1:22). “The thought of foolishness is sin” (Proverbs 24:9). The fool will not be governed by God's Word and law instead (that is, he is anti-nomous). Scripture describes people who do no know God, His ways, and His judgments as foolish (Jeremiah 5:4). The fool lives in practical ignorance of God, for in his heart (out of which are the issues of life, (Proverbs 4:23) the fools says there is no God (Psalm 14:1; cf. Isaiah 32:6). He lives and reasons in an atheistic manner - as though he were his own lord. Rather than being Spiritually directed, the fool’s vision is earth bound (Proverbs 17:24). He serves the creature (e.g., the authority of his own mind) rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25).
The man who hears Christ’s words and yet builds his life on a rejection of that revelation is a fool (Matthew 7:26), and the man who suppresses God’s general revelation in the created realm is also described as a fool (Romans 1:18). It is quite clear, then, that a fool is one who does not make God and His revelation the starting point (the presupposition) of his thinking. Fools despise the preaching of the cross, refuse to know God, and cannot receive God’s word (1 Corinthians 1-2). That is, apart from regeneration (rebirth) by the Holy Spirit through the preached Word (Romans 10:17; John 3:3). The self-proclaimed autonomous man, the unbeliever, will not submit to the word of God or build his life and thinking upon it. Disbelief and ignorance of God’s will, therefore, produce foolishness (1 Corinthians 15:36; Ephesians 5:17).
As a result, the fool does not have the concentration necessary to find wisdom; he vainly thinks that it is easily dispensed or gained (Proverbs 17:16, 24). By glorying in man, the fool’s thinking become futile and shameful (1 Corinthians 3); his heart is darkened, and his mind is vain (Romans 1:21). Because of his unbelief and rebellion against God’s word, the fool does not have knowledgeable lips (Proverbs 14:7). Indeed, because he does not choose to reverence the Lord, the fool hates knowledge (Proverbs 1:29). And what about the Christian who does not argue presuppositionally but seeks to form a neutral ground with the unbeliever? Is he not just as foolish for seeking the wisdom of the world as a methodology in defending Biblical truth? The unbeliever who criticizes the Christian faith is this fool which we have been describing above. In answering the fool a Christian apologist must aim to demonstrate that unbelief is, in the final analysis, destructive of all knowledge. The fool must be shown that his autonomy is hostile to knowledge - that God makes foolish the “wisdom” of the world.
A Two-Fold Apologetic Procedure
“Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”
Paul could stake his apologetic for Christian faith on this set of rhetorical questions (1 Corinthians 1:20), knowing that the word of the cross destroys the world’s wisdom and brings its discernment to nothing (v. 19). The unregenerate heart, with its darkened mind, evaluates the gospel as weakness and folly (vv. 18, 23), but in actual fact it expresses God’s saving power and true wisdom (vv. 18, 21, 24).
What the world calls “foolish” is in reality wisdom. Conversely, what the world deems “wise’ is actually foolish. The unbeliever has his standards all turned around, and thus he mocks the Christian faith or views it as intellectually dishonorable. But Paul knew that God could unmask the arrogance of unbelief and display its pitiable pretense of knowledge: “the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (v. 25). Although the unbeliever sees the Christian faith as foolish and weak, that faith has the strength and intellectual resources to expose “worldly wisdom” for what it truly is: utter foolishness. God has chosen the (so-called) foolish things of the world in order that He might put to shame those who boast of their (so called) wisdom (v. 27).
In the face of God’s revelation the unbeliever is “without an apologetic” (cf. Romans 1:20, in the Greek). His intellectual position has no worthwhile credentials in the long run. When he comes up against the intellectual challenge of the gospel as Paul would present it, the unregenerate is left with no place to stand. The outcome of the encounter is summarily expressed by Paul when he declares, “Where is the wise? Where is the disputer of this world?” The fact is that God makes foolish the wisdom of the world, and thus the genuinely wise unbeliever is not to be found. The man who can adequately debate and defend the outlook of this world (i.e., unbelief) has never lived. Rejection of the Christian faith cannot be justified, and the intellectual position of the unbeliever cannot be genuinely defended in the world of thought. The Spiritual weapons of the Christian apologist are mighty before God unto the casting down of every high imagination that is exalted against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:4-5). The unbeliever, as we saw in the last study, is a fool in the scriptural perspective, and as such his position amounts to a hatred of knowledge (Proverbs 1:22, 29).; his intellectual attack on the gospel stems from “knowledge” which is falsely so called (1 Timothy 6:20).
The apologist should aim to put this pretense of knowledge (which is, at base, a hatred of knowledge) to shame,; he should manifest the foolishness of this world’s “wisdom.” This calls for much more than a piecemeal attempt to adduce vague probabilities of isolated evidences for the reasonableness of Christianity. it requires, instead, the full scale demonstration of the unreasonableness of anti-Christianity in contrast to the certainty of truth to be found in God’s word. Dr. Van Til writes:
“The struggle between Christian theism and its opponents covers the whole field of knowledge... Christian theism’s fundamental contention is just this, that nothing whatsoever can be known unless God can be and is known... The important thing to note is this fundamental difference between theism and antitheism on the question of epistemology. There is not a spot in heaven or on earth about which there is no dispute between the two opposing parties.” [10]
“The method of reasoning by presupposition may be said to be indirect rather than direct. The issue between believers and non-believers in Christian theism cannot be settled by a direct appeal to “facts” of “laws” whose nature and significance is already agreed upon by both parties to the debate... The Christian apologist must place himself upon the position of his opponent, assuming the correctness of his method merely for argument’s sake, in order to show him that on such a position the “facts” are not facts and the “laws” are not laws. He must also ask the non-Christian to place himself upon the Christian position for argument’s sake in order that he may be shown that only upon such a basis do “facts” and “laws” appear intelligible...”
“Therefore the claim must be made that Christianity alone is reasonable for men to hold. And it is utterly reasonable. It is whole irrational to hold to any other position that that of Christianity. Christianity alone does not crucify reason itself... The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of proof itself.” [11]
The fool must be answered by showing him his foolishness and the necessity of Christianity as the precondition of intelligibility.
In Proverbs 26:4-5 we are instructed as to how we should answer the foolish unbeliever - how we should demonstrate that God makes foolish the so-called “wisdom” of this world. “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” The two-fold apologetic procedure mentioned by Van Til above is here described. In the first place. the unbeliever should not be answered in terms of his own misguided presuppositions; the apologist should defend his faith by working within his own presuppositions. If he surrenders to the assumptions of the unbeliever, the unbeliever will never effectively set forth a reason for the hope that is in him. He will have lost the battle from the outset, constantly being trapped behind enemy lines. Hence Christianity’s intellectual strength and challenge will not be set forth.
But then in the second place the apologist should answer the fool according to his self-proclaimed presuppositions (i.e. according to his folly). In doing so he aims to show the unbeliever the outcome of those assumptions. Pursued to their consistent end presuppositions of unbelief render man’s reasoning vacuous and his experience unintelligible, in short, they lead to the destruction of knowledge, the dead-end of epistemological futility, to utter foolishness. By placing himself on the unbeliever’s position and pursuing it to its foolish undermining of the facts and laws, the Christian apologist prevents the fool from being wise in his own conceit. He can conclude, “Where then is the wise disputer of this world?” There is none, for as the history of humanistic philosophy so clearly illustrates, God has made foolish the wisdom of the world. It is confounded by the “foolish” preaching of the cross.
Answering The Fool
In the last two studies we have begun to look at apologetics from the biblical point of view. It has been observed that (1) The intellectual outlook of the unbeliever is that of a “fool” (in the scriptural sense), (2) the unbeliever proclaims a pseudo-wisdom which is in reality a hatred, and destruction, of knowledge, (3) God makes foolish the wisdom of the world and puts it to shame through His people, who are able to cast down every high imagination exalted against a knowledge of Him, and (4) in order to give an answer to the fool, the believer should follow a two-fold procedure: (a) refusing to answer in term’s of the fool’s presuppositions, for they undermine the Christian position, and then (b) answering in terms of the fool’s presuppositions in order to show where they lead, namely, to epistemological futility.
Here we find the prescribed course for giving an answer to every man who asks a reason for the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Peter 3:15). The apologetic strategy rehearsed above meets the precondition laid down by Peter for defending the faith, that we “set apart Christ as Lord in your hearts.” By refusing to suspend the presupposed truth of God’s word when we argue with those who criticize the Christian faith, we acknowledge the lordship of Christ over our thinking. His word is our ultimate authority. If we were to reason with the unbeliever in such a way that we trusted our own intellectual powers or the teachings of the (so-called) experts (in science, or history, or logic, or whatever) more than we trusted the veracity of God’s revelation, we would end up the argument (if consistent) by agreeing with the unbeliever. In the language of Proverbs 26, we would answer the fool and end up being like him.
Also, by employing the apologetic procedure laid out above we can arrive at the same conclusion as did Paul in 1 Corinthians 1, that the intellectual outlook of the unbeliever is at base foolishness. Consequently, w can rhetorically ask “Where is the wise? Where is the disputer of this world?” The fact of the matter will be abundantly manifest: God makes foolish the wisdom of the world, and He does it by the word of the cross. By demonstrating to the fool that his presuppositions can produce only falsely called knowledge, the believer answers him in such a way that he cannot be wise in his own conceits. Thereby this two-fold procedure in presuppositional apologetics aims at argumentative success without compromising spiritual fidelity. It renders a reasoned account of the Christian hope as well as reducing all contrary and critical positions to impotence. It is to be remembered at this point, of course, that the apologist must do this destructive work with “humility and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15b).
A useful and instructive summary of the presuppositional approach to apologetics is given in 2 Timothy 2:23-25:
“But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth.”
First, this passage makes it very clear that the apologist simply not have an arrogant attitude in dealing with unbelievers. He must be gentile, patient, courteous, and unquarrelsome. The attributes come hard to most people who hold to strong doctrinal positions and who are diligent to defend those positions. It is easy to become headstrong and zealous to dominate you opponent. However, it is the opposite attitude, which is peaceable and gentle, that demonstrates that our wisdom is from above (James 3;13-17).
Second, this passage teaches that those who are challenged to defend their faith must not consent to answer in terms of foolish unbelief. Paul commands us to reject foolish question 0 that is, question given from the fool’s point of view. We are not to submit to the autonomous outlook which suppresses the truth of God; we are not to comply with the demand for agnostic neutrality in our discussions. The fool-oriented question is to be put aside. However, the avoidance of foolish questions does not take the form of silence, for the passage above indicates that we are to educate the questioner. An answer is to be given, but not an answer which conforms to the foolish presuppositions behind the question. Otherwise contention rather than education will result.
Third, it is revealed that the unbeliever “opposes himself.” By his foolish presuppositions the unbeliever actually works against himself. He suppresses the clear truth about God which is foundational to an understanding of the world and of oneself, and he affirms a position which is contrary to his better knowledge. He is intellectually schizophrenic. This must be made clear to him.
Fourth, Paul indicates that what the unbeliever needs is not simply additional information. Instead he needs to have his thinking completely turned around; he must undergo a conversion unto genuine knowledge of the truth. Until this turn-about takes place the unbeliever will have a knowledge of God which condemns him (cf. Romans 1:18ff), but a genuine or sincere knowledge of the truth - a saving knowledge - can only come with conversion. The unbeliever must be taught to renounce his feigned autonomy and submit to God’s clear word of authority.
Finally, the passage quoted above leaves no doubt as to what the source of apologetic success must be: God’s sovereign will. A Man will be converted only if it is granted to him from God. Since it is He who determines the destinies of all men (cf. Ephesians 1:1-11), it is He who also determines whether our apologetic will be fruitful or not. Thus it behooves us to avoid any attempt to “improve” upon the scriptural approach to apologetics. Our duty is to be faithful to the Lord’s instructions. He will bless obedience to His will; success cannot come by circumventing it.
|
|
