|
|
| |
|
| by Editor Erik Wait |
| |
 |
| |
The testimony of Scripture is clear in teaching that man cannot come to an understanding of God (and thereby of God’s world) by means of his independently exercised reason. One does not first satisfy with certain autonomous proofs that God exists and has a particular nature, and then after gaining this understanding place his faith in the Lord. Rather, reverence and faith precede one’s understanding or knowledge of God and all that has been made. To know God in salvation and approach unto Him has definite preconditions or requirements. The motto of the wisdom literature is that “The beginning (i.e. the first and controlling principle) of knowledge is the fear (or reverent submission) of the Lord” (Proverbs 1:7). About this verse Matthew Henry aptly comments:
“In order to the attaining of all useful knowledge this is most necessary, that we fear God; we are not qualified to profit by the instructions that are given us unless our minds be possessed with a holy reverence of God, and every thought within us be brought into obedience to him.”
The book of Hebrews repeatedly touches on the theme of drawing unto or coming to God (e.g., 4:16; 7:25; 10:22; 12:22), which has been made possible by the perfect ministry and accomplishment of redemption by Jesus Christ (cf. 8:1-13). The benefit of the New Covenant is summarily designated “knowing the Lord” (v. 11; cf. John 17:3). The unavoidable prerequisite of coming to the Lord in saving knowledge is laid down in Hebrews 11:6 as faith; without this it is impossible to please Him. Faith enables us to draw near unto God and know Him.
That which God demands of men is that they have faith in His Messianic Son (John 6:28-29), and Jesus declared that doing the will of God was necessary if one were to gain knowledge of God’s true revelation (John 7:17). From this it is evident that autonomous knowledge does not first pick out the genuine revelation of God, and then savingly trust the Savior who is revealed therein. Faith is the precondition of a proper understanding. Augustine drew the inference with clarity: “Understanding is the reward of faith; therefore, do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand” (Homilies on the Gospel of John 29.6). Virtue or personal rectitude (i.e. discipline despised by fools who hate knowledge, Proverbs 1:7b-8, 29). is the necessary support for knowledge; if a man’s heart is wrong, his thinking will correspondingly be futile. Just as knowledge is supported by virtue, so also virtue is supported by faith (2 Peter 1:5). Thus we must conclude that faith precedes knowledgeable understanding.
Since this is the case, and since repentance is unto faith (Matthew 21:32), the apologist must aim to bring those who live in ignorance to repentance (Acts 17:30) Knowledge can only be gained when the unbeliever repents and comes to faith in Christ; aside from the radical “change of mind” and confident submission to the truth of God, knowledge would be automatically excluded. Therefore, apologetical success depends on the sinner’s conversion: his thinking must be completely turned around , not simply supplemented with autonomous arguments. Faith and repentance, which produce reverence for the Lord, are foundational to knowledge, not vice versa. Understanding is not gained in the wisdom of man, but only when such pseudo-wisdom is abandoned for the truth of God. The apologetic method of the believer must take this fact into account at all times: if it does, the apologist will be faithful and bold to present the full change of presuppositional argumentation rather than the piece-meal attempts of those approaches which fail to call the sinner to abandon his system of thought with its autonomous assumptions and futile methodology. The opponent of the gospel will not come to knowledge until he renounces his sinful pride and alleged intellectual self-sufficiency - that is, until he epistemologically bows before the Lord in repentant faith.
But if repentant faith is necessary for the unbeliever to see the truth of the gospel which we defend, the success of our apologetic is in the hands of our sovereign Creator and Redeemer. Our polemic will be convincing only to the extent that our unbelieving hearers are renewed in their minds and recreated by God’s Spirit in the holiness of the truth (Ephesians 4:23-24). Only then will they stop walking in the vanity of their minds with darkened understanding and ignorance (cf. vv. 17-18). Knowledge requires repentance and faith, and thus knowledge depends on the grace of God who gives faith as a gift (Ephesians 2:8) and grants repentance (Acts 5:31; 11:18). When the sinner is benefited in these ways by God’s mercy and love, then he “puts on the new man who is renewed unto genuine knowledge according to the image of his Creator” (Colossians 3:10). Faith requires the one be born of God (1 John 5:1) who gives repentance unto a genuine knowledge of truth (2 Timothy 2:25). The apologist’s opponent must come to repentant faith if he is to gain understanding and knowledge, and this take place, not by superior knowledge or clever reasoning on the part of the apologist, but by God’s gracious faithful testimony and argument (as they are rooted in Christ’s word and are powerful according to Christ’s Spirit).
God must give us the success in our apologetic endeavors. Thus we must “walk in wisdom toward them on the outside” (Colossians 4:5), not arguing from the foolish presuppositions of unbelief but according to the presupposed authority and truth of God’s revelation in the gospel. When we do this we will know how to answer every man (v.6), looking to God in continuing prayer that He might grant apologetical success by opening a door for the word (vv. 2-3). The corrupt communication which characterizes humanistic thought (cf. Matthew 7:7:17-19) must not proceed from our mouths, but rather good words which represent the mind of God (cf. Matthew 9:17) and can minister grace to our hearers (Ephesians 4:29). As Paul, our speech must not be with the enticing words of human wisdom but with the powerful proof (demonstration) of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:4), knowing that the faith of our opponents must stand in the power of God and not the wisdom of men (v. 5). Such faith is unto understanding. Consequently the apologist must work from the presupposed word of Christ, be constant in prayer, and look to God for the door to be opened to the word (cf. Acts 14:27; 1 Corinthians. 16:19; 2 Corinthians 2:12) and for the ranting of wisdom, genuine knowledge, and enlightenment (cf. Ephesians 1:16-17).
Strategy Guided By The Nature of Belief
If someone is to have success at some endeavor, it is imperative that he know what the proper end, aim, or goal of that endeavor is. Success at the endeavor does not come accidentally or arbitrarily, and thus you cannot calculate what steps to take without an understanding of where you are going. The fact that the medical profession aims to bring health to its patients has critical significance for determining what methods and procedures it employs. A man does not know what to do in building his house until he learns what is necessary to keep the roof from falling in. Moreover, the goal of one’s endeavor delimits the ways in which he can successfully achieve it; for instance, if your aim is to reach Australia, success demands the exclusion of the automobile travel.
Therefore, if the apologist is to have success at defending the faith, he should understand the nature of his goal. That at which he aims will dictate the method he should follow. Now unless the apologist is engaged in a proud intellectual game, the goal of his defense and discussion with the unbeliever must be to see the unbeliever come to belief - that is, to saving faith. And once we grasp what God’s words teaches about the nature of saving faith we will be greatly advanced in understanding what method of apologetic argumentation should be followed in order (prayerfully) to achieve success.
There can be no doubt that Scripture sets forth Abraham to us as the paradigm for faith. Hence he is called “the father of all who believe” (Romans 4:11). We are all called upon to walk in his steps of faith (v. 12). The kind of faith possessed by Abraham was that which did not walk by sight or intellectual self-sufficiency; the hope which human reasoning and scientific investigation could afford was not Abraham’s guiding light. Instead, Abraham believed the incredible (by human standards) promise that, even though he was an old man without a visible heir, his seed would be innumerable (Genesis 15:5-6). He “in hope believed against hope” yet “according to that which had been spoken” by God that he would be the father of many nations (Romans 4:18). Contrary to the conclusions which might be drawn by the thinking of man, by according to the spoken word of God - that was the nature of genuine faith. Abraham had to know what was more dependable, what to presuppose, what guiding standard to follow. Thereby he illustrated so well that “faith is the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). Faith does not rely upon man’s autonomous thinking and what it “sees” but rather begins with a presuppositional conviction about the veracity of God’s word. That which is not seen in human ability is seen by faith which submits to the Lord’s self-attesting word (Hebrews 11:27). The essence of Sarah’s faith was that she deemed the Promiser (God) faithful (Hebrews 11:11). Full dependence of God’s veracity and giving His word epistemic priority over man’s excogitation are irascible elements of genuine faith.
The scope of faith, then, is not the horizon of what human hopes dictate as credible. Rather, the man of faith submits to the a priori dependability of God’s word just as Abraham did in obeying the command to sacrifice his only son after he had received him according to the promise. Abraham did this simply accounting God’s ability even to raise the dead (Hebrews 11:17-19). Abraham did not walk according to self-satisfying sight and demonstrable verification; his was a faith which made God’s ability and faithfulness foremost. He trusted that “no word is too hard for Jehovah” (Genesis 18:14) simply on the basis that God Himself had declared it. God’s word is its own authentication; it is self-attestingly authoritative. Abraham believed God’s word on its own merits. He was fully assured and wavered not in unbelief by concentrating on the promise of god (Romans 4 4:2--21). Here indeed is saving faith (v. 22) !
Given this clear example w can understand why Scripture teaches that our trust must be exclusively in God, putting no confidence in the flesh (Phil. 3:3). When a man trusts in himself he departs from the Lord (Jeremiah 17:5). Thus it is sheer foolishness for men to trust their own self-proclaimed, autonomous, thinking (Proverbs 28:26). Faith cannot be planted and grow in the soil of human wisdom; it requires that, instead, one presuppose the word of God. Therefore, Paul declares that his speech was not rooted in persuasiveness of human wisdom “in order your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God” (1 Corinthians 2:4-5). Faith begins with the Lord and submits wholeheartedly to His wisdom; it is set over against reliance on one’s own understanding or reasoning. The book of true wisdom exhorts us: “Trust in the Lord with all thy heart, and lean not upon thine own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5). When one willingly limits his faith, presuming to question the ability or truth of God based upon human intellect or argumentation, it is serious provocation before the Lord (e.g. Psalm 78:18-22). Consequently, faith is obviously not to be grounded in man’s self-reliant thinking. God must be taken at His word, for He is Truth itself.
Since this is the end which we hope to achieve in speaking apologetically with the unbeliever, it should be clear that our defense must be rooted in the presupposed word of God rather than guided by clever arguments which rest in assumed intellectual autonomy. We ought not in our apologetic teach the unbeliever to rust in himself in order to (savingly) rely wholly on the Lord!
Note Being Beguiled As Was Eve
Christ is the very wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24) even though the world of unbelief see Him and His gospel (v. 18). This fact must take hold of the apologist in order that he might remain faithful to his presuppositions as found in God’s revealed word, despite the world’s demand for signs and philosophical proofs (vv. 22-23) which cater to its own assumptions and presumed autonomy in the realm of epistemology. In consideration of one’s own gracious salvation he can see the utter foolishness of infatuation with human wisdom (v. 26). One did not become a believer by listening to the world and its self-professed intellectual autonomy, but by submitting whole heartedly to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in his thinking and behavior. The Christian must surely reason with those who are outside the faith, but he must ever remember that such reasoning does not require that he abandon his presuppositions so as to play the deceptive part of a “neutral man” who can self-sufficiently adjudicate all claims of revelation from whatever gods there may be.
When the believer encounters the unbeliever, he must do so with the wisdom of God, not the worldly wisdom which is confounded by God (v. 27). Hence Paul did not come from Athens to Corinth with the elaborate language or philosophical subtlety of the thinkers he encountered there (2:1). He did not utilize Athenian intellectual wares. Instead, his proclamation and defense were rooted in the sure word of God (2:2-5). without this word or revelation from God there can be no theoretical basis for logic, science, or history; one’s thought has no meaningful content, dependable use, or objective referent and certainty apart from thinking God’s thoughts after Him. Apologetical success hinges on this realization. With it, the Christian can be bold in challenging unbelieving presuppositions and be faithful in adhering to his own (thus remaining loyal to Christ’s lordship in the realm of thought). The unbeliever can fight against the gospel only by ruining the foundation of his intellectual efforts. To avoid the same plight the defender of the faith must stay true to the sovereign word of God as his most basic presupposition and guideline. He needs to argue from within that perspective, not in a way which is extraneous or contrary to it, giving in to the assumptions of his own opponents not even for a moment (cf. Galatians 2:5).
The moment one abandons his sure footing in the presupposed word of God his apologetic becomes unfaithful and precarious. A vivid confrontation of that fact can be taken from the account of man’s fall into sin according to Genesis 3. Even in the garden man was responsible to submit without question to God’s revelation given by special word to him. Satan’s strategy then (as now) was to work toward undermining man’s presuppositional submission to this authoritative word from God. He began by calling the word into question (v. 1) and then contradicting it openly (v. 4). The epistemological situation was thrown into upheaval when Eve began thinking that she could have a meaningful and proper understanding of reality apart from God’s revelation. In that case she was free to examine what God had to say and autonomously determine its truth over against the conflicting hypothesis of Satan. She suspended thinking God’s thoughts after Him in order to become the prime authority in the world of thought. Specifically, she abandoned loyalty to her Creator so as to make herself His equal (v. 5), determining good and evil for herself. She took her stand as a “neutral” judge over God’s hypothesis, thereby exalting her “autonomous” reason over God’s epistemologically necessary word. By thus usurping the epistemic prerogatives of the Lord, and because her husband Adam he abdicated his role as head over his wife and failed to drive the serpent, crushing its head (v. 15), and thus maintain dominion over the garden the human race was plunged into the lawlessness we see ever about us in thought and behavior. [13]
Jesus Christ came to atone for such sins (even intellectual transgressions against God’s word) and to call men back to unswerving loyalty to His revealed word. The apologist cannot turn a deaf ear to that call and demand, thinking that he nevertheless defends the Lord of glory. Paul, the apostle of Christ, makes it very clear that we must learn the lesson of Adam and Eve in the garden. In 2 Corinthians 11:3 he says, “But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.” The epistemological implications of the narrative about man’s fall into sin were only too obvious for Paul. Thus he dreaded that the church might, like Eve, be seduced away from absolute loyalty to Jesus Christ. What is required of the Christian is undivided devotion or single-hearted adherence to Christ the Lord; we must be free from duplicity in our thinking. The double-minded man (attempting to follow two lords) is unstable in all his ways (James 1:8), being blown about by every wind of doctrine (cf. v. 6). Thus we must be purified from double-mindedness (James 4:8). As Paul indicates in 2 Corinthians 11, if we are not thus purified, we shall be beguiled by the deceptive thinking of satan (the father of all lying, John 8:44) and his ministers (v. 15). No extraneous corruptions can be allowed in our thinking, for it shall become debauched when we deviate even slightly from the word of Christ. Genesis 3 must drive home the need for a presuppositional method in apologetics.
By taking such a stand in the argument with unbelief, we may very well be ridiculed as lacking the oratory, eloquence and cunning rhetoric of the “sophisticated” academic mind is trained in the ways of autonomous philosophy (cf. 1 Corinthians 1;17; 2:4); when you do not reason in a way pleasing to your hearer, he will take you for a layman in matters of intellect. However, the fact remains that only by resisting the deception to which Eve submitted can w salvage the epistemic enterprise; we speak a wisdom which is discerned when the Spirit frees men’s minds from bondage (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:6-16). Paul declared , subsequent to his warning about Eve’s deception, “though I be rude in speech, yet I am not in knowledge” (2 Corinthians 11:6).
Not Lying To Defend The Truth
A source of great disappointment to the Christian scholar in the present day is the refusal of many apologists to reckon with certain hard but indisputable facts in God’s word. The impression is often given that these men as theologians want to admit what Scriptures says about the nature of fallen man and the utmost and necessary authority of God’s revelation in any field of knowledge; however, as apologists they want to act in oblivion or temporary suppression of these truths. Such duplicity is dishonoring to the Christian’s calling.
Saving faith cannot be grounded in human wisdom or secular presuppositions: it must be generated in the power of God (1 Corinthians 2:4-5). Accordingly the apologist does not speak the wisdom of this world (which is brought to nothing) but the wisdom of god (1 Corinthians 2:6-7). Recognition of Christ as the wisdom of God stems not from presuppositions which deny, ignore, or undermine this fact; instead, such recognition results from the inward work of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:10) who alone can enable us to gain a knowledge of the things of God (v.12). Because only the Spirit of God knows these things (v.11), the Christian does not speak or rely upon autonomous philosophy, history, or science as the world teaches (v. 13). To follow secular presuppositions incapacitates one from discerning the truth about God (v. 14), for they can be understood only by the enlightenment of the Spirit (vv. 15-16). The pseudo-wisdom of the world, then, is most unsuitable as a foundation or standard for the defender of Christian faith; it cannot improve upon the mind of the Lord (v. 16) but instead leads one inevitably to challenge the truth of God’s revelation. Apologetic success is precluded, then, by dependence upon or catering to unauthoritative human foolishness which is unalterably inclined to crucify the Lord of glory rather than bowing before His sovereign demands (cf. 18).
It is the regenerated and enlightened believer, converted from his old manner of disobedient living, who gains wisdom, understanding, and knowledge; right thinking is correlated with right living. Hence the unbeliever’s form of life is an unsuitable framework for the apologist to operate within. If one continues in intellectual sin - refusing to submit every thought to the Lordship of Christ in the realm of knowledge - he will never come to saving belief. “To depart from evil is understanding” (Job 28:28), and “a good understanding have all they that do His commandments” (Psalm 111:10). Consequently, the apologist cannot attempt to persuade the unbeliever by using the unbeliever’s style of thought or standards of evidence and truth, etc. Such a procedure simply will not woo him to Christ but encourage him to assert his own autonomous authority over Christ’s claims. [14] However, God’s sure word declares that we can know God only if we keep His commandments (1 John 2:3-5), and those commandments include our obligation to refrain from putting God to a test (Deuteronomy 6:6) and to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5). Our wisdom and understanding are not found in “cleverness” of autonomous thinking, but in obeying the law of God. Genuine knowledge and stability in the face of false opinion are correlated with spiritual maturity in the stature of Christ (Ephesians 4:13-14); it is a pleasing walk and morally worthy life which lead to genuine knowledge (Colossians 1:9-11).
Now then, it is frankly immoral for the theologian who sees the above truths to give a double standard, admitting these things as a dogmatician but giving a completely opposite impression in his apologetic procedure. The apologist must not let the unbeliever assume that knowledge is possible given autonomous presuppositions and a disobedient life; God’s word is never verified in such a context. In his attempt to bring about the good situation of an unbeliever accepting the word of Scripture, the apologist makes use of an unjustifiable lie if he assumes or leads the unbeliever to think that knowledge is to be gained apart from God or while one persists in a rebellious way of living and thinking. It cannot be ignored that repentance and faith are necessary for a knowledge of the truth; it must not be suggested that the unbeliever needs nothing more than intellectual proof of God’s veracity according t standards dictated by secular philosophy and science. The worthy end of converting the unbeliever cannot be realized by, nor can it justify, making apologetical use of a means which operates in disagreement with (or opposition to)the teaching of Scripture. “If the truth of God abounded by my lie unto His glory, why am I still judged a sinner? And not rather (as we are blasphemed and some allege that we say), ‘Let us do evil in order that good may come? The damnation of whom is just” (Romans 3:7-8).
Apologists are prohibited from using a non-presuppositional method in defending the faith under the excuse that thereby truth might abound. The obedient Christian does not lay aside the authority of Christ in the realm in order to operate with a lie (namely, the Satanic lie that knowledge can be determined apart from God: Genesis 3:5, cf. Romans 1:25) in order to defend the truth! The faithful witness to Christ will not behave as an unbeliever (denying Christ’s Lordship) in order to make him a believer.
Evil men cannot speak good things (Matthew 12:34) [15]; the evil treasure of the unbeliever’s thought is where his heart is (Matthew 6:21; Luke 6:45), from which proceeds evil, deceitful, foolish thoughts (Matthew 15:18-19; Romans 1:21; Jeremiah 17:9). Hence his tongue is full of iniquity and an unruly evil (James 3:5-8; with it he uses deadly deceit (Romans 3:13-14). He thinks that he alone is lord over the use of his lips (Psalm 12:4), leading him to speak falsehood (v. 2). Obviously, then, the apologist must not think and speak after the manner of the unbeliever. Instead his thoughts and words must be rooted in God’s word which is pure and eternally valuable (Psalm 12: 6-7). It is this word which alone stops every mouth (Romans 3: 19) and leaves men speechless (e.g. Job 40:4). We must guard the apostolic deposit (Scripture) by turning away from the vain claims of pseudo-knowledge (1 Timothy 6:3-5, 20; cf. 2 Timothy 2:14-18). Before God and His word all the world must be silent (Isaiah 6:5; Daniel 10:15; Habakuk 2:20; Zepheniah 1:7; Zechariah 2:13). We, then, must rely upon God and not our own wisdom (Isaiah 50:4-9); only then will we see apologetic success as He enables us not to be confounded and makes one able to contend with our message (Isaiah 50:4-9) . Therefore, we conclude that the apologist must be transformed by a renewed mind and not fashion his thinking according to the world (Romans 12:2). He must not lie or abandon God’s presupposed truth in order to bring acceptance of that truth by evil doers.
|
|
