|
|
| |
|
| by Erik Wait |
| |
 |
| |
A Response to “An Appeal to an Open-Minded Skeptic” (CRI Journal Vol. 21/Number 4) by Ed Young.
Ed Young (not the famed Reformed theologian Edward Young) a Baptist pastor of Second Baptist Church in Houston, writes:
“Many believers will never have an occasion to witness to a Muslim, a Hindu, or a member of a religious cult. But there is one evangelistic opportunity that virtually every believer is certain to face: sharing his or her faith with an open-minded skeptic... They view themselves as truth-seekers who object to the claims of Christianity on the basis of reason. While these skeptics may have some bias against belief in Christ, these skeptics are at least willing to dialogue with Christians.” (pg 8)
Can a skeptic really be “open minded” in relation to his rejection of the Christian worldview? If one means by “open minded”, the willingness to dialogue with a Christian this is not really “open mindedness” but rather a mere philosophical curiosity or willingness to discuss various topics.
“Open mindedness” conveys the idea that one’s mind is not hostile to an opposing view (particularly in relation to the Biblical claims) and has the possibility of, apart from regeneration, changing from that of a natural unregenerate man to that of a regenerate (born-again) spiritual man. However, Paul makes it clear that non-believers do not merely have some bias (as Young suggests) against belief in Christ but rather that, “a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) Thus, for example, before Lydia could come to faith in Christ “The Lord opened her heart (her mind) to heed the things of Paul” (Acts 16:14). Apart from the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit working through the preached Word of God, Lydia would not have been an “open-minded” skeptic who seeks the truth, but rather a child of wrath who loves darkness rather than the light (John 1:9; 3:19) The fact that unbelievers “view themselves as truth-seekers” is part of their problem for they wish to define truth apart from Christ’s self-revelation with their own autonomous rationalistic mind and standards. So often Christians speak of Christ as “the answer” to the world’s questions and perceived problems, but in doing so they fail to realize that the questions the unbeliever asks “How can I be happy?” or “How can I find meaning in life?” not realizing that the unbeliever, apart from the Scriptures, cannot even ask the right question for which Christ is the answer! The problem for which Christ is the answer is not a mere social ill but a total alienation from God! Thus apart from a Biblical view of sin, as defined by the Law of God, the unbeliever cannot know how to ask the right question (“How can I be right with God?”) for which Christ is the answer for only the Law can reveal our alienation from God (Romans 7:7).
Likewise, are we as Christians “open minded” in relation to the possibility that opposing views may be correct and the authority of the Bible may be wrong? Do we merely have “some bias”? Absolutely NOT! The Scriptures tell us “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7) and apart from the fear of the LORD claims to knowledge are not justifiable for rationalism, empiricism, and existentialism cannot justifiably account for anything as fallacious epistemological systems. Thus the Christian cannot be open to systems opposing the Word of God as authoritative and instead seek to supplant, or even allow the possibility, of the Bible being replaced with the words of the serpent. Thus, while the Christian apologist ought to be always open to dialogue with the non-believer it is always with the intended purpose (a total and complete bias), not to approach the discussion in a neutral fashion, but to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). But in order to do so we must FIRST, as a complete bias, “sanctify Christ as Lord in [our] hearts” and thus we will be, “always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks [us] to give an account for the hope that is in [us], yet with gentleness and reverence” (2 Peter 2:15).
In Acts 17:16-34 we read of Paul’s confrontation with the Epicurean (epistemological empiricists) and Stoic philosophers (epistemological rationalists) in which he does not accommodate the Christian message, the gospel, to their world view (philosophical presuppositions) but rather he demonstrates the antithesis of the Biblical world view and the conclusion to which their supposed rationalist and empiricist philosophy leads them (a city given over to idols v. 16). Thus rather than accommodating his message in an empiricist or rationalist fashion, by challenging them to do such things empirically investigate the empty tomb, he asserts the Biblical account of creation and the resurrection and the pending judgment of Christ. While Paul may use the language and terminology of the philosopher as a means of common communication, the resurrection in Paul’s apologetic is ALWAYS presented within the spectrum of the Biblical Christian world view which has as its presumed ultimate authority the Scriptures:.
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)
Thus the resurrection of Christ is never presented as an independent historical fact outside of the entire Christian system of thought which is to be judged as credible by the autonomous mind of the skeptic. While those at the Areopagus were willing to hear what Paul had to say, as listening to new ideas was the Oprah Winfrey Show of the day, they were not “open minded” in the sense of listening to Paul’s message in an unbiased fashion. Their hearts and minds were in autonomy-seeking hostility against the Lord of glory.
In addition to the above quote Young states that these supposed “open minded skeptics” are “simply not convinced of the deity of Christ and His claim that He alone is ‘the way and the truth and the life.’” But this too is fallacious. If the unbeliever has heard the gospel presented, (the incarnation, atoning death, and resurrection of Christ) it is not that he/she is not convinced but rather that what is known to be true is being suppressed.
First, everyone knows that the God of the Bible exists for, “that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:19-20). This knowledge of God is not deduced from an accumulation of independent facts in creation but rather is an immediate knowledge in the heart and mind of every man for this revelation of God is “understood through what has been made.” But the fallen man left to his own “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.” (Romans 1:19). Thus the goal of a dialogue with an unbeliever is not to convince him of what he does not know or is not convinced of, but rather that through discussion and apologetic presentation of the gospel the person, by the power of the Holy Spirit, will cease to suppress what he KNOWS to be true and come to faith in Christ.
Reasons To Believe
After presenting the scenario of the “Open-Minded Skeptic” Young then sets out to present the standard moral, teleological and cosmological arguments for “God” in which one presents the moral relativism of atheism, the necessity of an ultimate Cause for all cause and effect relationships, and an ultimate Designer for all apparent order and design in the universe. However, without realizing it, Young has presented the necessity of first presupposing the Bible as the authoritative Word of God.
How so? In presenting the cosmological argument Young states, “The cosmological, or ‘cause and effect’ argument, states that no effect exists without a cause.” (pg 9) However, the so-called “open-minded skeptic” merely needs to reply, “If all things must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If one cannot have an infinite regression of causes then on what basis must ‘God’ be the first cause and not matter and the laws of physics? Thus your choosing ‘God’ as the first cause is merely arbitrary for you make causation a universal absolute which you neither assert absolutely or universally.” Of course the response to the so-called “open-minded skeptic” is usually, “...but God by definition is without cause.” This is where he standard cosmological argument fails for the skeptic merely has to assert, “By what authority do you assert that God ‘by definition is without cause?’”
The Christian believes that all things must have a cause and that the God of the Bible is that necessary cause, “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:16-17) Thus the only way we can only define God as the “Uncaused Cause” is by the Bible which must first be presupposed for epistemological intelligibility. How else can we KNOW epistemologically that God is eternal unless He Himself authoritatively reveals that to us? Without the Bible “G-o-d” is left up to the definition of the autonomous mind and thus is not necessarily by definition an “Uncaused Cause” and whether one chooses matter and the laws of physics to be an eternal regression of cause and effect or God is merely arbitrary. Following his presentation of the cosmological argument Young presents the teleological argument in which he states:
“The Teleological, or ‘design’ argument also points the agnostic skeptic to theism. Telos has to do with an end or goal, and the fact that our own existence points to a Designer. For example, suppose a person came upon some stones on the beach, arrayed in the form of a miniature hut with a door and a window. One might surmise that the stones were randomly washed up on a beach and haphazardly came together to form a miniature hut. Yet it would be more reasonable that the stones were assembled in such a fashion by someone - a designer. Some minuscule fraction of mathematical probability might allow for the freak occurrence of a mini-stone hut, but the idea of a designer is more plausible, to say the least.” (pg 9)
Young not only goes into more detail concerning the teleological argument but in the process of doing so he presents a more abhorrent defense of Christianity with holes in the argument large enough for a camel to walk through! How so?
First, Young makes the existence of a Designer only “highly probable,” or statistically probable, and thus leaves the unbeliever open for justifiable doubt for if Christianity is only 99.99% probably true there is still the possibility that it could be false. Winning the state lottery is extremely highly improbable (the odds usually being worse than a million to one), and yet people do on occasion win. In addition, if anything can happen randomly then all one needs is a matter of time for the highly improbable to occur. Statistically speaking, given enough time and money, anyone will win the lottery if the money and time are limitless.
Second, the unbeliever will also reply to the teleological argument that “design” is something which our mind imposes on nature in order to create categories for ease of the assimilation of data. Thus we create categories of reptiles, mammals, birds, etc. in order to define creatures and yet, as the platypus demonstrates, such clear-cut definable categories are not always possible or universally applicable. Thus while things may appear to have design, or definable boundaries of definition, these are merely an imposition of our mind. To make an argument for a Designer because something phenomenlogically appears to have design is like those who argue for inhabitants on Mars because there appears to be a giant face on its surface. If all things which appear to have design must have a designer, then the Christian must argue that there have indeed been extra-terrestrials on Mars creating the “face” and similar formations such as apparent pyramids. But even without such phenomenon as the “face” on Mars, consider the intricacies of snowflakes and other crystalline structures. Yet, the beautiful highly geometric shapes of such structures phenomenalogically “just happen.”
Third, like the fallacy of the of the cosmological argument, to make the necessity of all things with apparent design require an ultimate Designer a universal absolute and yet argue that “God,” who must be all the more intricate and complex, does not have a Designer is a failure to consistently apply the category of a universal absolute. Again, the Christian may respond that “God” by definition is without a Designer but by what authority does one assert such a definition apart from Bible? We know that we must have a designer because the Bible says “I will praise You, because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.” (Psalm 139:14-15) Thus the Bible is a necessary starting point for we are to argue for the God of the Bible and NOT a generic “god,” or god of any other religion, and then incrementally work our way up to the God of the Bible.
Liar, Lunatic Or Lord?
Following the theistic proofs Young presents C.S. Lewis’ well known “trilema” from his book Mere Christianity in which the “open-minded skeptic” is supposedly willing to accept the historicity of Jesus Christ, but deny the orthodox view of Christ as the incarnate Son of God. Thus supposedly the “open-minded skeptic” is willingly to place Christ in the category of a “good man” but not accept the Biblical revelation of Christ.
While there is some validity to pointing out the fallacy of thinking that Jesus could be a “great moral teacher” and not accept Him for who He said is, God in the flesh, it is at this point that the three options of Christ being either “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord” misses the opportunity to challenge the central issue at hand. The “trilema” argument takes various propositions of Christ, as presented in the gospels, and states that if Christ claimed to be God and was deluded as to His identity (a lunatic), or mislead his followers (a liar), then he could not have been a “great moral teacher.” The only option left is that He is Lord.
However, it is at this point the argument falls apart for it fails to challenge the “open-minded” skeptic’s assertion, “On what authority can you call Christ good?” as did Jesus:
“And as He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and began asking Him, ‘Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.’” (Mark 10:17-18)
Unless one is willing to recognize Jesus as God there is no basis for calling him, “Good Teacher.” The autonomous thinking unbeliever who wishes to believe in a person named “Jesus” who was merely a “great moral teacher” believes in the Jesus of his own imagination. Thus based on his own autonomous thinking he picks and chooses which portions of the Bible he wants to believe. Thus when the Christian uses the “trilema” argument he must ask, “Do you believe that the Bible accurately portrays Jesus Christ? On what basis do you believe the accounts of Jesus’ ‘good’ works are reliable and yet other statements concerning Christ’s identity are not? In fact, on what basis, on what epistemological authority, can you assert that Christ existed at all? ” Again, epistemologically the unbeliever is a rationalist (actually an irrationalist), asserting his mind as the ultimate authority, by which he cannot justifiably know anything let alone the existence of Christ as merely a “great moral teacher. ” His autonomous thinking leads him to his irrationality in asserting Christ being a “great moral teacher” and not being God in the flesh. But if on the other hand he is willing to accept the Bible as a reliable account of the life and teaching of Christ and submit to it as God’s authoritative revelation, which is necessary for the trilema argument to be valid, then your argument is merely an exegetical one, taking the ignorant person through the various propositional statements of the Bible which clearly demonstrate that Jesus is God incarnate. The fact is the unbeliever who asserts that Jesus was merely a “great moral teacher” KNOWS that Jesus is God but is “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.”
Answering The So-Called “Open Minded Skeptic”
If the Christian apologist should not answer the so-called “open-minded skeptic” with the rationalist theistic proofs of Thomas Aquinas, how then ought we “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”? (Jude 3).
First, realize that ALL apologetical situations are, at their core, a matter of how we account, justify, what we know and believe. Thus whether we are dialoguing with a “Muslim, a Hindu, or a member of a religious cult” or the so-called “open-minded skeptic” we are dealing with their assertion “I believe in X, and I KNOW it to be true because of Y.” At the center of their assertion is their claim to know it to be true thus epistemology (one’s theory of knowledge and how we know things) is a central issue.
Second, the Christian is not to play the game of the unbeliever, allowing him to call the shots and set the rules for how we ought to seek the truth as the Proverb states, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” (Prov. 26:4). Thus we are not to seek to approach the discussion in a supposed neutral fashion but rather as a matter of opposing propositional statements which have fundamental different presuppositions concerning how we interpret data and a criterion for truth.
Third, we ought to show him the fallaciousness of his world view (philosophy, epistemology) and how it leads him to irrationality and thus we ought to, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” (Prov. 26:5). In doing so we “for the sake of argument” assume his worldview and demonstrate how rationalism cannot account for anything (let alone anything outside his own mind), empiricism cannot account for universals or the non-empirical (such as the laws of logic, laws of physics etc.) and existentialism is only an expression of one’s perceived experiences. Thus for a true and valid system of knowledge one must submit one’s thinking to the authoritative Word of God, the Christian world view as a whole, as that only valid means of knowing anything. Christianity is true because of the impossibility of the contrary, all else leads to irrationality. |
|
