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