Apologetic Groundwork #5: Luther and Apologetics

Did Martin Luther use apologetics? Luther did not shun apologetic arguments but he did used them sparingly. Luther’s historical context must be considered. Most people who lived in Luther’s day identified themselves as Christian. The creation of the world and the resurrection of Jesus Christ were a given. Luther’s primary battle was against representatives of the church who were busy perverting the gospel. Luther’s tact was hermeneutic not apologetic. Luther’s adversaries were heretics who used reason and not Scripture to support their claims. When Luther famously described reason as a whore the context of such wording was in his debate with Karlstadt concerning the Lord’s Supper. Luther understood that Karlstadt was basing his teaching of the Lord’s Supper on human reason, not Scripture.

Professor Siegbert Becker recognizes this distinction when he writes,

“As we have said, Luther was certainly not averse to the use of reason in debate with unbelievers. He warns against the use of reason in the doctrine of justification, in matters of conscience, and in regard to satisfaction, remission of sins, reconciliation and eternal salvation. But “at other times, whenever you must, outside of this doctrine of justification, debate with Jews, Turks, and sectarians about the wisdom, or the power , or the attributes of God, then use all your skill, and be as subtle and sharp a debater as you can be, for then you are in a different kind of argument.”

…Thus while it is possible to find in Luther a most vehement rejection of reason, yet he did not deny all common ground between the believer and the unbeliever.”1  

We have already mentioned that Luther distinguished between a natural knowledge of God and an evangelical knowledge of God. The evangelical knowledge saves the natural knowledge does not. Luther also makes a distinction between reason used in a ministerial sense and reason used in a magisterial sense. Another way to distinguish between the ministerial use of reason and the magisterial use of reason is by noting its starting point. The ministerial use begins with the Word of God, namely the Word made Flesh. Christianity is based upon the incarnation of the Son of God. Reason is the magisterial sense is based upon the word of man and a deity that is formed in the image of his likeness. Montgomery correctly writes, “Luther’s theology calls for a proclamation of this truth (the miracle of the incarnation), not for an impossible defense of it which invariably appeals to the “natural man” desiring to justify himself.” 2  

Does the fideist, anti-apologetic stance of most Lutherans stem from a desire to be good Lutherans or are there deeper philosophical forces at work that have worked to shape the modern mind? Francis Schaeffer proposed that the enlightenment caused a split in the thinking of modern man. Schaeffer likens the mind of modern man to a two story house. In the lower story is the public world of nature, science, and facts. In the upper story resides the private sphere of the religion, values, and opinions. The lower story is objective while the upper story is subjective.    

                  

Liberal theologians, following the lead of enlightenment philosophers, placed the life and work of Christ outside the realm of history. Immanuel Kant developed important categories that allowed for this division to take place. Kant placed the religious into the noumenal realm. The noumenal realm consists of that which goes beyond our senses and reason, the realm of faith. The phenomenal realm became home to what human senses and reason could experience. The Word of God was thus divorced from history and reason once again becomes magistrate by placing the Christian faith in its noumenal, subjective and fideistic cage.

Kierkegaard, with perhaps a pietistic aversion to the “deadness” of Lutheran orthodoxy, advocated for a subjective “leap of faith.”  Schaeffer writes,

 “But the important thing about [Kierkegaard] is that when he put forth the concept of a leap of faith, he became in a real way the father of all modern existential thought, both secular and theological. As a result of this, from that time on, if rationalistic man wants to deal with the really important things of human life (such as purpose, significance, the validity of love), he must discard rational thought about them and make a gigantic, non-rational leap of faith.” 3

If confessional Lutherans wish to be anti-apologetic then they ought to pause and consider who else resides in the anti-apologetic camp: liberal and neo-orthodox theologians. Fideistic and rationalistic presuppositions are two sides of the same coin operating on enlightenment assumptions.  Fideism begins with the upper story while rationalism begins in the lower. In fact, liberal and neo-orthodox theologians are quick to use Luther as an anti-rationalist subjectivist. Montgomery quotes liberal theologian Ernst Kaesermann:

“Neither miracles nor the canon nor the Jesus of history is able to give security to our faith. For our faith there can be no objectivity in this sense. That is the finding which New Testament scholarship has made plain in its own fashion. But this finding is only the obverse of that acknowledgment which Luther’s exposition of the third article of the Creed expresses.” 4  

Unbelievably, David Hume, advocated for fideism as a way to defend Christianity. It should again cause pause when one of the most vicious anti-Christian philosophers of modern history advocates for an anti-apologetic approach to the faith:

“The manner in which both Hume and Kant attempted to mute the implications of their conclusions is revealing. Each explicitly frames what might otherwise be a clear denial of long-held tenants of Christianity as, to the contrary, a defense of Christianity. Hume, for example, notes that he is especially “pleased with the method of reasoning here delivered, as I think it may serve to confound those dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian religion who have undertaken to defend it by the principle of human reason.” His rational for thus thinking, he explains, is that “our most holy religion is founded on faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is by no means fitted to endure.” Though there is little doubt about Hume’s pious claim to be defending the priority of faith over reason is disingenuous and self-serving, it is precisely the same claim forwarded also by Kant, who claimed that he “had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” 5

Notice how Kaesermann appealed to Luther’s condemnation of reason in the matter of attaining salvation to strip Christianity of its factual moorings. Montgomery notes:  “The strongest opponents of a Lutheran apologetic are those who base their anti-apologetic stance on the conviction that Christianity is, after all, nonobjective.” 6

Craig Parton says something similar when he writes:

“Liberalism’s despising of apologetics is thus seen for what it is – the rejection of the Christian faith. The religious liberal is left with a subjective religious feeling that is created in his or her own vain image and is utterly divorced from the New Testament record.” 7

Swiss theologian Karl Barth checked liberalism by advocating for the truth of Christianity, but Barth held onto the dualism of Kant’s categories and once again placed the lion of God’s Word into a cage to protect it from modern liberalism. The term geschsichte was employed by Barth to describe the realm of Christian truths which are detached from the realm of history (historische). Bultman and others took Barth’s neo-orthodoxy to its logical conclusion by demythologizing the Scriptures in order to find the true essence of the gospel. 

The liberal and the neo-orthodox may see their theology as an heir and extension of what Luther began but Montgomery writes,

“Luther very definitely distinguished two kingdoms, earthly and the spiritual… But does this distinction dichotomize the world into a secular realm where reason and proof operate, and a spiritual realm where evidence has no place?... Is Luther to be assimilated to the Platonic-Kantian perspective? The answer will depend squarely on what kind of connection Luther saw between the two kingdoms. If he in fact kept them in water-tight compartments, then a positive apologetic originating in the secular realm could not in principle justify truths lying in the spiritual sphere.” 8

Montgomery answers by noting how God breaks the divided concept of truth through his incarnation:

“Luther’s two kingdoms are connected as to origin, for “those two separate realms are ultimately both God’s realms” and, even more important, they are linked in practice by the individual Christian believer…. As the individual Christian unites the two kingdoms in his person, thereby bridging the sociological gap between them, so the Incarnate Christ Himself links the two realms epistemologically. The incarnational center of Luther’s theology eliminates entirely the possibility of making him an advocate of “two-fold truth”….

Luther insists that the search for God begin at the connecting link between earth and heaven which exists at the point of the Incarnation. There we find a genuine human being…but also very God of very God…. “Philosophy,” which starts elsewhere, must be forgotten; absolute truth is available only here. Why does Luther concentrate relatively little on traditional proofs for God’s existence (even though he considered such argumentation valid)? Because for him it did not constitute the proper point of departure.” 9

Should our Lutheran apologetic employ the dual nature of truth or a unified nature? Is there a division between the heart and the brain? Between knowledge and meaning? The Scripture does not allow it. Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection are knowledge and meaning. They engage the heart and the brain. Mary Magdalene and Thomas saw the empirical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection and by faith they apprehended the spiritual meaning and the unempirical – that they too will rise. Christianity draws a circle around all knowledge and the key to that circle is the Incarnation of Christ.

Youth are thus educated in a dualistic frame of reference. We live in a culture in which a person might become offended if you place religion into the objective sphere of truth. These same people are also offended when that which is in the lower story: science and by extension evolution, are questioned. Placing Christ’s words in the realm of facts and Darwin’s ideas in the realm of fantasy is anathema in the modern mind:  Pearcey writes:

“In English classes, teachers have tossed out their red pencils, and act as though things like correct spelling or grammar were forms of oppression imposed by those in power. But paradoxically, if you go down the hallway to the science classroom, you’ll find that there the ideal of objective truth still reigns supreme. Theories like Darwinian evolution are not open to question and students are not invited to judge for themselves whether or not it is true. It is treated as public knowledge that everyone is expected to accept, regardless of their private beliefs….  Describing the students who troop into his classroom year after year, philosopher Peter Kreeft says, “They are perfectly willing to believe in objective truth in science, or even in history sometimes, but certainly not in ethics or morality.”  10

Nancy Pearcey notes that a result of this divided concept of truth is a gradual assault from the lower story to the upper story. We may have our faith but it must be private. Our faith must not be called truth and it must not be applied to politics, science, education, occupation or anything else in the lower story.

“Since the Enlightenment, the fact realm has steadily expanded its territory into the value realm until there is little or no content left there. It has been reduced to empty words that merely express our irrational wishes and fantasies, with no basis in reality as defined by scientific naturalism. Using graphic terms, Schaeffer warns that the lower story “eats up” the upper story, dissolving away all traditional concepts of morality and meaning.”  11

Christians have not only been duped into buying into this public/private split of the secular and sacred but they have also not clearly the seen that the “lower story” consists not of flesh and blood but of “powers and authorities.” The secular world is not neutral but is controlled by Prince of this World. Parents and youth should understand that the secular university is not spiritually neutral but carries an anti-Christian spirit. Lutheran youth schooled in America’s public school system is no different than the prophet Daniel learning at the feet of Babylonian scholars, the only difference is that Daniel understood where his teachers were coming from. Our youth are in great spiritual danger.

___________________________


1 Becker, “The Foolishness of God.” p. 176.

2 Montgomery, “Faith Founded on Fact.” P. 140.

3 Schaeffer, Francis A. “The God Who Is There.” Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1998, p. 36.

4 Montgomery, “Faith Founded on Fact.” p. 135.

5 “The Natural Knowledge of God and the Christian Witness.” A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. April, 2013, p. 24.

6 Montgomery, “Faith Founded on Fact.” p. 136

7 Parton, “The Defense Never Rests.” p. 69

8 Montgomery, “Faith Founded on Fact,” p. 140-141.

9 Ibid., p. 142-143.

10 Pearcey, Nancy. “Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity.” Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2005. p. 107 

11 Ibid., 111.

Apologetic Groundwork #4: Fideism

The primary apologetic position for most Lutherans is fideism. Fideists argue that it is improper to use human reason to demonstrate the truthfulness of the Christian faith.  The Holy Spirit operates through the bare Word of God and to use human reason is to infringe upon the work of the Holy Spirit. While fideists correctly understand that reason can be detrimental to faith they forget that reason is also a “gift of God” and a “useful servant in theology.” Simply put, the faith of a fideist is subjective and blind. The fideist approach is evident in Christian youth. What would our synod’s youth more likely say, that they believe Jesus rose or that they know that Jesus rose? A student from Martin Luther College noted that many of his classmates say that Christianity is true because of their faith. Is the truth of Jesus’ resurrection subjective or objective? Does Jesus’ resurrection rest on faith or fact? Youth ought to be taught that Christ really died and rose whether they believe in it or not. His resurrection is objectively true with or without my faith.

While fideists readily expose the dangers of rationalism, fideism has become easy prey in the new age of pluralism and relativism. Faith, in our age, is purely subjective and divorced from fact. It is a fideist version of Christianity that receives criticism from atheists like Richard Dawkins, who says: “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” Anti-Christian rhetoric embraces the fideist concept of religion when it likens the Christian faith to faith in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, cosmic teapot, an invisible pink unicorn or a pantheon of pagan gods.1   John Warwick Montgomery writes,

“Under no circumstances should we retreat into a presuppositionalism of a fideism which would rob our fellow men of the opportunity to consider the Christian faith seriously with head as well as heart. Our apologetic task is not fulfilled until we remove the intellectual offenses that allow so many non-Christians to reject the gospel with scarcely a hearing. We must bring them to the only legitimate offense: the offense of the Cross.”2  

Have you not noticed how contradictory the subjective faith of the millennial is? A millennial may claim to be a Christian and strict Darwinist. A millennial may claim to be both Christian and pro-gay marriage. A millennial may claim to be Christian but they may also adhere to New Age or Universalist beliefs. Our relativist Christian youth often live in a contradictory way as their subjective reality trumps the objective. This is a dangerous position and I am concerned about the future of our synod when it falls into the hands of fidiest millennials. When Christianity is subjective then the subject dictates doctrine or becomes selective with doctrine.  While reason is rightly subjected, feelings and cultural consensus becomes Scripture’s magistrate. If you work with youth you may notice that when they discuss they will preface everything with the words, “I feel.” Augustine exposes the true nature of a subjective faith when he says, “You can believe what you like in the gospels and believe what you don’t like, but it’s not the gospel you believe it’s yourself.” Timothy Keller counters the fideist subjective stance by adhering to the historical and objective truth of Jesus’ resurrection: “If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to accept all that he said; if he didn't rise from the dead, then why worry about any of what he said? The issue on which everything hangs is not whether or not you like his teaching but whether or not he rose from the dead.”3  

Does fideism protect Christians from rationalism? For the youth who think more objectively their fideism will likely crash on the shoals of atheism as they recognize that their faith is void of fact. Consider the following quote from a young man who attended church and Christian schools only to become an atheist at the University of Madison, Wisconsin: “Simply put, there is no verifiable truth in Christianity. I realized I was basing my life on something I was taking at face value. If I had grown up in a different religion I would be that religion for the same reason. My dilemma was that I had no defensible reason to be a Christian.” This young man was a fideist, and rather than protecting his faith from rationalism it destroyed it. 

Does fideism protect Christians from legalism? For those who take fideism to a subjective extreme the basis of assurance rests on not what is objective but rather on what is subjective. A subjective approach to Christianity offers a backdoor for legalism as it shifts the focus of one’s faith from the objective to the subjective. My faith becomes the basis for salvation. The subject of faith (the self) takes precedence over the object of faith (Jesus). This is a terrible irony when one considers how the fideist approach is advocated to shield the Christian from the legalism inherent in rationalism!

In the end, fideism preaches what it cannot put into practice. If we must avoid apologetics because of the possibility of entangling human reason and God’s Word then the next time you preach refrain from all human props. Refrain from any sort of logic, humor, emotion, passion and any use of your human reason which would include application, interpretation, and doctrinal systematization. Refrain from condemning rationalism because such a condemnation is expressed through reason. The fidest, like the relativist, will find that their position is self-refuting.

 We are not against human reason and neither is the Scripture. We are against the misuse of human reason. We are against an unbiblical view of human reason.  Our synod does not think twice when using our reason to discuss theology. What a beautiful servant reason is in this manner. And yet, we must be cautious that we do not err doctrinally. The same tact is required in our apologetic efforts. Lyle Lang advises against the position of avoiding apologetics due to its use of human reason:

“Does apologetics make use of reason? Certainly! Does this mean we cannot use apologetics because we are trying to “reason” people into the Christian faith? Certainly not! The Lord wants us to a give a defense for the hope that we have. Reason is involved in the process. However, the message conveyed by reason, the gospel, alone can convert. Studying how to do apologetics is as valid as study as homiletics and catechetics. We don’t send ministers of the gospel out into the field and tell them to write or say whatever comes to their minds. We train them before we send them out. Why should we do any less when it comes to equipping our students for defending the hope they have?”4  

As we discuss the role of reason in apologetics and the dangers of both rationalism and fideism we need to reacquaint ourselves with the definition of faith: a faith that includes knowledge, trust and the will. Fideism is a faith that scorns notitia while rationalism scorns fiducia. Alvin Schmidt advocates for a return to the confessional view of faith contra fideism:

”The Augsburg Confession (1530) states faith consists of believing “the history [and] also the effect of history, namely, this article of the forgiveness of sins – that is, that we have grace, righteousness, and forgiveness of sins through Christ” (Article XX). Briefly state, a Christian’s faith is not a subjective experience divorced from factual evidence in history, for instance, the bodily resurrection of Christ. Informed confessional Lutherans have always insisted that faith consists of notitia (knowledge), assensus (assent), and fiducia (trust) in the promise of God in Christ

The threefold understanding of faith needs to be recovered and taught by Lutheran pastors in Sunday school classes for our youth, confirmation classes, adult Bible classes, and preached in sermons. Only then will the tendencies of many Lutherans to lapse into fideism come to an end when they, for example, are asked about the veracity of the Bible’s miracles and Christ’s resurrection. Instead of saying, “I believe them to be true,” they will respond, “I know them to be true, for the New Testament documents, which report them, have been shown to be true and reliable.”5

______________

1 The church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody religion produced to mock Christianity. The cosmic teapot is a reference to philosopher Bertrand Russell who likened the existence of God to the existence of a teapot in earth’s orbit. The invisible pink unicorn is a modern version of Bertrand’s teapot. Atheists will also compare Jesus Christ to other pagan deities and say something like, “I just choose to believe in one less god that you.” Documentaries such as Zeitgeist and Bill Maher’s Religulous try to convince their audiences that Jesus is plagiarized from pagan myths. 
 2 Montgomery, John Warwick. “Faith Founded on Fact.” Irvine, CA: NRP Books, 2015, p. 41-42
 3 Keller, Timothy. “The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.” New York: Dutton, 2008, p.202
 4 Lange, Lyle W. “Lutheran Apologetics: From Our Classrooms and into the World.” Lutheran Synod Quarterly 51, no. 4, December 2011, p. 13.

5 Schmidt, “Christianity Needs More Lutheran Apologetes.” P. 511.

Apologetic Groundwork #3: Presuppositional and Negative Apologetics

Presenting evidence for theism in general (classical) or for Christianity specifically (evidential) is only one side of the apologetic coin. A person might view the portrayal of evidence as a “positive” apologetic. On the other side of the coin is a “negative” apologetic that exposes anti-Christian worldviews as lacking and irrational. The prophets take this “negative” approach towards pagan idol worship:

“Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, “Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.” From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, “Save me! You are my god!” They know nothing, they understand nothing; their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see, and their minds closed so they cannot understand” (Isaiah 44:16-18).

Jesus employed this tact against the Pharisees as he exposed the hypocrisy of the wolves who feed on his sheep. The apostle Paul advocates such an approach when he writes: “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).

The duty of a shepherd is not just to lead the sheep to green pasture but to protect them from the wolves.  In Paul’s farewell to the Ephesians he says,

“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.” (Acts 20:28-31).

Confessional Lutheranism has always taken this task seriously. The Lutheran confessions are set up in an antithetical manner because our doctrinal positions are made clearer when contrasted with false teachings. Our forefather’s took this task seriously, do we? Pieper quotes Walther:

“A man may proclaim the pure doctrine, but if he does not condemn and refute the opposing false doctrine, does not warn against the wolves in sheep’s clothing, the false prophets, and unmask them, he is not a faithful steward of God’s mysteries, not a faithful shepherd of the sheep entrusted to him, not a faithful watchman on the walls of Zion., but, as the Word of God says, an unfaithful servant, a dumb dog, a traitor.”1

“Negative” apologetics has received new life in recent years as apologists have pushed back against the so-called “new atheists” exposing atheism as a parasitic worldview which must borrow concepts such as rights, equality and morality from a theistic perspective. Atheism has to borrow the morality of the religious to condemn the religious. Atheism is to religion what anarchy is to politics. The anarchist points out the shortcomings of various systems of governments but offers nothing in return. Atheism is a self-aggrandized nude emperor, blind to his own nakedness, while criticizing the clothing of everyone else.  Christians can and ought to expose the atheism’s inconsistency, irrationality and unviability.

Nancy Pearcey and her mentor, Francis Schaeffer, take an apologetic approach that finds the weakness or the “tension” within the non-Christian worldviews and exposes these weaknesses. This approach comes from what some call the transcendental argument for God’s existence. In other words, the Christian God is not the conclusion to the argument but the one who makes the argument possible. 2  The alternative to the Christian framework should be Solomon's Ecclesiastic approach of meaninglessness. Nihilism, not enlightenment, is the endgame of atheism.

Pearcey applies this tact to philosophical materialism:

“You might picture a worldview as trying to stuff the entire universe into a box. Invariably, something will stick out of the box. Its categories are too “small” to explain the world. As a result, it will lead to an inhumane view of the person. To use biblical language, those who exchange the glory of God for something in creation will also exchange the image of God for something in creation—and because it is something less than God, it always leads to a lower view of humanity. Let’s use materialism as an example, since it’s the underlying assumption in virtually every subject area in the academic world today. The most consistent versions of materialism deny the reality of anything beyond matter—no soul, no spirit, no will, no mind. This is called reductionism: Humans are reduced to biochemical machines. For example, Richard Dawkins says humans are nothing but “survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed” by their genes.”3  

Negative apologetics and worldview analysis are valuable contributions from what we would call presuppositional apologists. Presuppostional apologetics considers the worldview lens through which humans view the universe. David Nobel has produced an apologetic course that analyzes the main non-Christian worldviews that are vying for modern man’s allegiance.4  These worldviews include Secular-humanism, Cosmic-humanism, Postmodernism, Marxism and Islam. Part of our apologetic must be an analysis of worldviews that are competing for the minds of our young people. To do so is to follow in the footsteps of the reformers who were eager to point out and destroy the errors of those that set themselves against the Word of God.

For the strict presuppositionalist evidence is secondary and perhaps useless until a person puts on the appropriate lens. Presuppositional apologists are often Calvinists. Reformed theology may ignore evidential apologetics because in their view sinful man has lost his reason. The Calvinist emphasis on presuppositionalism places its starting point on the sovereignty of God rather than the incarnation creating a philosophically-based approach rather than an evidence-based approach.

Lutherans hold that reason, while corrupted by the fall into sin, was not destroyed. “Lutheranism knows that man is a rational creature before his conversion, and knows that he remains a rational creature after his conversion.”5  Humans can still interpret facts correctly. Parton warns, “The moment the Christian sequesters the life, death, and resurrection of Christ into a hermetically sealed world that the unbeliever may not enter, he divorces Christianity from its incarnational moorings.”6  It should also be noted that the correct interpretation of facts does not equate to a saving faith. The Bible is filled with humans who saw miracles and rejected them. A man can know the truth but that correct knowledge may be nothing more than a demonic shuddering (James 2:19).

The Calvinist and Arminian often battle each other in the field of apologetics. The former taking the presuppositional approach while the latter gravitates toward the classical or evidential approach with some overlay in between the two. The Lutheran approach to apologetics ought to begin with Christ. Our beginning is not in the realm of philosophy in which our corrupted reason will break its neck and our end is not to encourage man to make a decision for Christ through his reason. Our beginning and end is Christ. God, in Christ, intrudes into the world of flesh and facts. One of the reasons why our theologians need to take the apologetic task seriously is so that they can rightly excise the Calvinist and Arminian theology that lurks within the world of apologetics. We must stop sitting at the feet of the wayward children of the reformation and teach apologetics from a Confessional Lutheran point of view.

__________________

1 Pieper, Francis. “Christian Dogmatics.” Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950, Vol. 1, p. 49-50.
 2 Gundry and Cowan, “Five Views on Apologetic” p. 220.

3 “Finding Truth: An Interview with Nancy Pearcey.” Dec 10 2015   

  https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2015/12/finding-truth-an-interview-with-nancy-pearcey/

4 Nobel, David A. “Understanding the Times.” Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Press, 2006.
 5 Becker, “The Foolishness of God.” p.188

6 Parton, Craig A. “The Defense Never Rests.” Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2015, P. 73

Apologetic Groundwork #2: Evidential Apologetics

The main apologetic thrust of the Scriptures is evidential. Luke prefaces his gospel with an appeal to eye-witness testimony and careful investigation so that Theophilus may know with certainty:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4).

The book of Acts begins with the words many convincing proofs demonstrating that Jesus’ resurrection is evidence based:  “After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3).

When John’s disciples questioned Jesus’ messiahship he responds with evidence as foretold by Isaiah: “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (Luke 7:22). Jesus does not tell John to look in his heart or to believe harder but to simply look at the evidence.  One of the main themes throughout the gospels is the signs that point to Jesus’ divinity. Jesus points to his many signs and also to the witness of the prophets, his Father, the Spirit, John the Baptist, and his resurrection from the dead as proof of his divinity.

When Thomas doubted, Jesus presented him with empirical evidence of his resurrection. Upon seeing the evidence Thomas confessed, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). When members of the church in Corinth doubted the resurrection of the dead the apostle Paul appeals to the eye-witness testimony of Jesus’ resurrection:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).

Throughout the book of Acts the apostles treat the resurrection of Jesus Christ as an eye-witnessed historical event. Peter describes the resurrection as an event envisioned by the prophets and witnessed by the apostles:

“Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it” (Acts 2:29-32).

Paul declares that the resurrection of Jesus is “proof” (Acts 17:31).  Paul also proclaims the verifiable facts of Jesus’ death and resurrection to his audience in Pisidian-Antioch: “When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem” (Acts 13:29-31).

When Festus challenges Paul’s testimony Paul appeals to what had been witnessed publically as well prophetically. Notice how Paul told Festus that the events of Jesus’ death and resurrection were not done in a corner.

At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.”

“I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.”

Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”

The Old Testament prophets also appeals to historical and prophetic evidence. Isaiah exposes the foolishness of idolatry through the inability of other gods to predict the future.

“This is what the Lord says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come— yes, let them foretell what will come. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one” (Isaiah 44:6-8).

Today, evidential apologetics follow the Biblical example of proclaiming the factual nature of Christianity. Evidential apologists establish the trustworthy nature of Scripture and the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. While evidentialists are not opposed to utilizing the classical methods they may view such methods as superfluous. The evidential apologist may see the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a single stone that can kill two birds. Why begin with the cosmological argument when the resurrection of Jesus demonstrates both the existence of God and the truthfulness of Christianity? Gary Habermas and Josh McDowell are two of today’s most popular evidential apologists. Classical apologists such as William Lane Craig also make contributions. Also noteworthy is the fact that a few Lutherans have made contributions to this apologetic field including John Warwick Montgomery and Craig Parton.

The appeal of evidential apologetics is that it begins with Christ and the Scriptural record. Evidential apologetics acknowledges that the Christian faith is founded on fact, facts that do not arise out of man’s science or man’s reason but on the observed events that took place when God entered human history.

Apologetic Groundwork #1: Natural Theology and Classical Apologetics

Apologetic Groundwork: Intro

“Simply put, there is no verifiable truth in Christianity. I realized I was basing my life on something I was taking at face value. If I had grown up in a different religion I would be that religion for the same reason. My dilemma was that I had no defensible reason to be a Christian.”

The young man who said this attended a Christian church, a Christian grade school and a Christian high school. “I had no defensible reason to be a Christian.” Consider his choice of words, “defensible reason.” His words call to mind a passage from 1 Peter 3:15: “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

To “give an answer” in the Greek is the single word apologia. The NASB and HCSB translate apologia as, “give a defense.” This young man attends the University of Wisconsin after almost a decade of Christian instruction, his faith butts up against the wind and waves of human teachings and men in their deceitful schemes, his Biblical worldview is challenged and he responds by saying that he has no apologia.

Is he right? Is the Christian faith blind and subjective? Is Christianity one of many ideas placed upon the world’s religious smorgasbord? Is our faith floating in a vacuum untethered to historical investigation and empirical evidence? And did this young man’s pastors and teachers give him this impression? How are we presenting the Christian faith? I am sure that we are all presenting Christianity as truth. But is our presentation of Christian truth an objective and historical truth? Or are we inadvertently catering to a different type of truth, a subjective and relative truth? The word “truth” does not have the same push or even the same meaning that it once had. 

Apologetics is a branch of Christian theology “concerned with the defense of the Christian faith against charges of falsehood, inconsistency, or credulity.”1  Apologetics acknowledges the fact that the Christian faith is defensible, that it rests upon that which is objectively true, that it has empirical evidence and that it is based upon verifiable truth.  The imprisoned Paul writes to the Philippians that he was “put here [in prison] for a defense (apologian) of the gospel” (1:16). Luke records in Acts 26 how Paul gave his defense (apologia) to King Herod Agrippa and Festus. The context of apologia implies a courtroom or trial in which a person is called to make a defense. 

Is apologetics a field of study that should be taken seriously in our churches, schools and seminary? Is apologetics an indispensable tool or is it an improper use of human reason? Is it a door to evangelism or a door to heresy? The goal of this paper is to begin a discussion by scratching the surface of an issue that our synod’s theologians need to seriously consider. The spirit of this paper stems from a desire to reach those that are lost and those that are drifting away from our circles.

Natural Theology and Classical Apologetics

Natural theology is the study of God that takes place outside of divine revelation. The diverse concepts of deity and the variety of religions demonstrate that natural theology is an inadequate knowledge of God. Despite this weakness the Scriptures still employ natural theology. Paul utilizes both natural theology and the Old Testament Scriptures to demonstrate that human nature is rebellious and depraved. 

The apostle writes, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20).

Interestingly, the word “excuse” is a derivative of apologia. Unbelievers will not have a defense in God’s courtroom because the natural knowledge of God testifies against them. The Psalmist concurs with Paul:

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4).

Paul also appeals to the witness of the natural law imprinted on the human heart:

“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.” (Romans 2:14-15).

The natural knowledge of God also functions as a point of contact in Paul’s mission work. Paul connects with his audience at the Athenian areopagus through this knowledge (Acts 17:22-31).

“People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you” (Acts 17:22b-23).

Paul even quotes two Greek pagan poets, “‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring’” (Acts 17:28). Paul also uses the natural knowledge of God when visiting the less sophisticated residents of Lystra.

“We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them. In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.” (Acts 14:15b-17).

Natural theology functions as an important apologetic tool in Paul’s ministry. Paul utilizes the natural knowledge of God as a point of contact with his pagan listeners and he uses the natural knowledge of God as a servant to important Christian doctrines such as the doctrines of original sin.

The natural knowledge of God, however, is not a sufficient knowledge of God. Jesus told the Pharisees that they do not know the Father (John 8:19). Paul writes to the Corinthians: “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21). 2 The natural knowledge of God is useful as a starting point, but nothing more. Natural theology leaves us in darkness and despair.  Martin Luther makes the distinction between the natural knowledge of God and the evangelical knowledge of God:

“The evangelical knowledge of God…does not grow in our garden. Reason knows not a drop of it… and it is hidden from her. She speaks of it as a blind man speaks of colors. The first way of knowing God is natural and common, and it is renewed through the law of Moses. But the evangelical knowledge must be preached from above and formed into the heart – that is, one must learn that God gives grace and truth through his beloved Son. Therefore, see how blind the world is in this second way of knowing God.”3  

The apologetic method that employs natural theology is called classical (traditional) apologetics. Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas utilized the classical method. Modern advocates for the classical method include William Lane Craig and Norman Geisler.  Classical apologists argue that establishing a theistic worldview is necessary before presenting further evidence for the Christian faith. Arguments employed by classical apologists include the cosmological (first cause) argument, teleological (design) argument, ontological argument, and the moral law argument.

Confessional Lutherans ought to follow Paul’s example when using Classical Apologetics but we must proceed with caution understanding its limitations. Dr. Siegbert Becker writes,

“…Luther did believe that natural theology had some validity and force. What Luther did not believe is that reason and natural theology could do what Aquinas believed it could do. Luther consistently held instead that natural theology is always uncertain, inadequate, misleading and legalistic.”4  

Classical apologists such as William Lane Craig move dangerously close to the position of Aquinas when they present arguments for God’s existence as a “first step.” Classical apologetics can be useful for demolishing atheistic arguments or establishing a common ground but it should not be viewed as assisting humans in taking a step toward salvation. Becker writes:

“The scholastic theologians, following Thomas, had held that if a man follows the dictates of reason in religion, he could come to a recognition of the necessity of revelation, and when on this road he had reached the point where he was ready to accept guidance, God would not fail to give him the aid that was necessary to bring him to a fuller knowledge of God. Luther, however says that dictum of the scholastics, “When a man does what he can, God will unfailingly give grace” is disproved by the example of the philosophers… [who] did not obtain grace, but instead fell into deeper darkness….”5

William Lane Craig’s primary apologetic argument is based upon the Kalam Cosmological argument which states that since the universe had a beginning the universe must have had a cause. The name Kalam refers to a medieval Islamic school of thought from which the argument originated.  The obvious weakness of the argument is that it does identify the creator as the Christian God. The creator of the universe could be Allah, a plethora of gods, or an alien life form in a different universe. Craig attaches the Kalam Cosmological argument to modern scientific advances which claim that the universe had a beginning.  Craig and other Christian apologists have employed Big Bang cosmology and the fine-tuning of the universe as arguments for the existence of God. While the concepts of fine-tuning and cosmic beginning are possible starting points in our apologetic, the development of such arguments through modern science place faith on the fickle foundation of human reason. If faith in God’s existence rests upon Big Bang cosmology what will happen if the Big Bang cosmology is modified or even discarded? If natural theology is the first step of my faith then my faith is resting on sand. While Big Bang cosmology may agree with Genesis 1:1, the rest of the chapter would need to be adjusted hermeneutically in order to cater to the Big Bang’s scientific demands.

Creation science, while desiring to stay true to Genesis, suffers from a similar problem in that it hitches Christianity to the limited and ever-changing field of science which is based upon human reason.  Atheists like Bill Nye and Creationists like Ken Ham believe that Christianity can be fought for upon the field of science. This is an abuse of both science and religion. Arguing about God’s existence in the realm of science is like two mechanics arguing over the designer of a jet engine after taking apart and examining the jet engine. One mechanic foolishly presumes that no one designed the engine because he cannot see a designer within the engine or because he understands how the engine works. The other mechanic believes the engine to be designed but foolishly plays by the other mechanic’s rules using the mechanics of the engine as the means to prove that it is designed. Meanwhile, across the room on a worktable is a book filled with information on the designer and the purpose for why the designer made the jet engine. Both mechanics in the parable are committing a categorical error.  Origin and purpose of the engine are beyond the scope of mechanics. The origin and purpose of the universe are beyond the scope of science. Science can give us clues about the designer of the universe in the same way that an engine can give us clues about its designer, but these clues are not enough to know the true nature of the designer.

Christian youth ought to be educated properly on science. There is inconsistency in conservative Christian circles as to how we should approach Creation Science or science in general. The question of science is important. Youth need to understand that science is limited and ever-changing. They also need to understand that the scientific establishment presumes that God does not exist and that science can ultimately explain everything. Philosophical materialism, the belief system that under-girds modern science, is the issue and ought to be our primary target.

In summary, classical apologetics can be used as a point of contact or as a way to demonstrate the foolishness and rebellious nature of unbelief. Anything more and we descend into the rabbit hole infested world of philosophy and science where confusion, not certainty, is king.  

_________________

1 Gundry, Stanley N., and Cowan Steven B, eds. “Five Views on Apologetic” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000, p.8.

2 See also Psalm 14 and 53

3 Becker, Siegbert W. “The Foolishness of God.” Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Publishing House, 1999, p.43

4 Becker, “The Foolishness of God.” p.50

5 Ibid., p.51