(The following is an edited email correspondence.)

Is it always preferable to do evangelism using the approach taught in your Ultimate Questions, rather than appealing to the existential values and the practical advantages of coming to Christ?

In The Light of Our Minds (ch.1), I show that, technically speaking, apologetics and evangelism can be distinguished from each other, but they have such an intimate relationship that there is often no need to speak of them as separate and different, that is, unless we are involved in a discussion that requires greater precision, and thus the distinction.

With that in mind, Ultimate Questions is more about apologetics and philosophy than evangelism. (See Presuppositional Confrontations, ch. 2, where I blend together apologetics and evangelism.) The method espoused there is always the best way to do apologetics, since rationally speaking, your opponent can evade anything other than valid deductive arguments, often just by saying, "I don’t care," "That doesn’t prove anything," or "So what?"

But since most people are irrational, they often respond better to non-rational or irrational methods. For example, a personal testimony is often quite effective (at least in producing superficial effects in the hearers, but not in producing faith), although it doesn't really prove anything. Then, although the apostles mainly emphasized God’s grace and purpose, and man's need to repent and believe, they did mention some of the existential benefits of coming to Christ.

It depends on your audience as to the kind of effects that you can expect from non-rational or irrational approaches. If you were to argue that Islam is a false religion because it instructs its adherents to murder those who oppose it, this might carry weight with some people, but I would reject the argument right away, since I would realize that it is fallacious. It is logically invalid to assert that Islam is wrong because violence is wrong, but it should be the other way around — if Islam is right, then violence is right. If Islam truly reveals the mind of God, then whatever Islam teaches is true, including violence; but if Islam is wrong, then the violence that it teaches is unjustified. We cannot begin from the violence that it teaches to determine whether or not Islam is wrong.

Yet we encounter similar irrational arguments all the time — that is, the kind that puts things in the wrong order — and it is effective with many people. Sometimes this is because there is an innate knowledge of God and his moral laws in every person’s mind. Thus there is an instinctive moral opposition to murder. Some cultures or people groups may have suppressed this more than others, but then other parts of their innate knowledge is more evident with them. Because of this innate knowledge of God and his moral laws, even presentations that are not strictly valid (with conclusions deduced from established premises by logical necessity) are often effective, since they still appeal to something that is already innate in the hearers. That is, these invalid presentations might be applying some premise or information that the hearers already know, even as they try to suppress it in their minds. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we should tolerate or encourage these invalid presentations.

But because people are irrational, they are often deceived by outright false premises and by false inferences, so that even arguments that are completely void of truth are often effective — arguments that are invalid and contradict both biblical revelation and man’s innate knowledge — that is, if it appeals to some sinful preference in the hearers.

One important effect of regeneration and sanctification is to rescue man from this stubborn and pervasive irrationality.

The deductive/presuppositional approach is always preferable in apologetics — it is the only rational route. And if you think about it, opportunities for evangelism often arise out of apologetic encounters — that is, from discussions in which the differences of worldviews generate disagreements.

Your Christian worldview will often generate disagreements with other people about politics, science, ethics (abortion, adultery, etc.), world religions…and just about everything. But if the deductive/presuppositional approach is always better in an apologetic encounter, and evangelistic opportunities often arise from the clash of worldviews, then the need for the deductive/presuppositional approach comes up just about every time you do evangelism. Even if the encounter begins from a non-argumentative presentation of the gospel, if someone has a question or objection (which is common), you are back at apologetics.

The deductive/presuppositional approach is a necessary part of preaching the gospel, since much of it involves presenting the teachings of the Bible, knowledge that is necessary for salvation. The apostles themselves employed deductive/presuppositional arguments in their preaching, to both believers and unbelievers. Reading the preaching of the apostles, some people can see only personal testimony, since they are predisposed to notice these things, but they don’t do a very good job even when relating their personal experiences. And of course, their personal experiences are nothing like the apostles’, who were with Jesus for several years, and who were with him in his death and resurrection.

Nowadays, when people talk about personal testimony, they often have in mind a feeling of ecstasy or exhilaration (which is not even conversion), a moral reformation (but they are still not very moral), even a vision or some other special experience (but the "gospel" they attach to it may not be biblical), or otherwise some silly story that doesn’t really contribute to the case for the gospel. Do not assume that someone is doing what the apostles did when he gives his personal testimony — it is usually nothing like theirs.

Then, if you present some sort of a pragmatic argument, so can the atheist, the Communist, the Mormon, and just about anybody from any belief system. That is, just about anybody from any belief system can relate what he considers a positive change in his life that resulted from that belief system.

Pragmatic arguments are logically worthless, although they are often psychologically compelling (the reason for this has been explained above). How rational is your audience? The more rational your audience, the more you risk being laughed at by using a pragmatic argument.

If a Buddhist says to me that Buddhism changed in his life, I would not challenge the claim — I would just laugh at him. It does not prove that Buddhism is true. Even a movie or a novel can change a person’s life or inspire moral reform, but it says nothing about whether or not the philosophy behind the movie or the novel is true.

An argument based on effect or personal experience works like this:

1. If X, therefore Y
2. Y
3. Therefore, X

This type of reasoning is called "affirming the consequent," which is always fallacious. But it is the exact reasoning process employed by every argument that appeals to the empirical and the pragmatic, and it is the very core of science. (See Bertrand Russell, "Is Science Superstitious?")

Jesus says that "you will know them by their fruit"; however, apart from biblical revelation, we cannot even specify what is a good fruit and what is an evil fruit. Of course Jesus knew this, and he was certainly not telling us to evaluate a person by our own non-biblical opinion.

Similarly, when you give a personal testimony about your faith, or when you enumerate some of the existential benefits of coming to Christ, the testimony and those benefits could be considered positive only because they are specified as such from the biblical perspective. So, rationally speaking, if the pragmatic and existential were to worth anything at all, they must still be derived from a biblical/deductive/presuppositional foundation, for by themselves, they are irrational and irrelevant.

Thus, although it is often acceptable to present your personal testimony or to discuss the existential benefits of coming to Christ, you must not attribute to these things a higher rational status than they deserve, and you must base them firmly on the foundation of biblical revelation, and discuss them only within such a context. You should give them relatively minor roles in your overall presentation, since in themselves they do not even present the gospel; they do not communicate the word of life, or the power that saves.

In short, it is best to preach the gospel through biblical expositions, clash with your opponent using the deductive/presuppositional approach, and then as optional illustrations (not as strict rational arguments), perhaps relate your personal experience and some of the existential benefits of faith.

Of course, these are not necessarily done in the above order, but they can be flexibly blended together in the course of your conversation with the unbeliever. In addition, one aspect of your presentation must not contradict another. For example, after you have completely destroyed the rational standing of induction, sensation, intuition, and science as part of your apologetic, do not then elevate your personal experience or self-knowledge to the undeniable rational certainty that can be attributed only to Scripture.

Finally, although non-rational or irrational approaches sometimes appear more effective because most people are irrational, it does not follow that we should tolerate this. In fact, as long as one’s faith is not mainly or only based on the biblical/rational, but on the personal, practical, or existential, that faith might even be spurious, or at least forever feeble. Part of our presentation, then, should be to challenge the irrational standards of our hearers. Why should they respond better to personal testimonies, or to practical or existential arguments, than to biblical/rational arguments? They should not, and this is precisely one of the things that we should get across while preaching the gospel and defending the faith.

Recommended:

http://www.intoutreach.org/seeking.html

http://members.aol.com/jonathanedw/Seeking.html

The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 1

The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 2

Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions

Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations

Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation

Vincent Cheung, The Light of Our Minds

Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word

Joel Beeke, Puritan Evangelism

Gordon Clark, Today’s Evangelism

Walter Chantry, Today’s Gospel

Posted in Apologetics, Ministry | Permanent Link