Students in the Real World, 3-2
Then, you need an approach for intellectual engagement that is both flexible and invincible, that can adapt to any situation and that will always win. For our purpose, we will group the major approaches to apologetics into two general categories.
The first kind of apologetics is evidentialism, a misleading but accepted name. We will include both classical and evidential apologetics under this category. These two methods share enough similarities so that we may discuss them together, but there are also significant differences between them. Since at this time we prefer convenience over precision, we will use the term "evidentialism" to represent both schools of apologetics.
Evidentialism has three major weaknesses.
First, biblically speaking, it is unfaithful. Its assumptions, reasonings, and interactions do not reflect what Scripture says about God, man, truth, and sin. But since we are doing apologetics to defend the faith of the Scripture, this approach undermines its own professed purpose from the start. And if the Bible is a revelation of truth, then anything that contradicts it must be false.
Second, rationally speaking, it is impossible. It begins and proceeds with the same first principles – the same irrational basis – that the unbelievers affirm. The non-Christian trusts his own sensation, but he cannot provide a justification for empiricism. He appeals to his intuition, but he cannot show that it reflects anything other than his subjective bias. He relies on inductive reasoning, but he cannot demonstrate its rational validity. He practices the scientific method, which besides being formally fallacious, rests on induction, sensation, and often also intuition.
In connection with this, notice that our three criticisms against evidentialism are in fact directed at the non-Christian method of reasoning. It just happens that evidentialism has adopted the same non-Christian approach. This being the case, these three criticisms against evidentialism will also destroy the arguments that unbelievers employ against the Christian faith.
Third, practically speaking, it is unusable. Even if we ignore the first and second sets of problems with evidentialism, in practice its effectiveness depends on the opponent's gullibility. This approach can make assertions and claims about the "evidences" that support these assertions, but it cannot present these evidences at the moment of debate. The relevant scientific data, manuscript fragments, ancient artifacts, and so on are not so readily available or portable that one can show them to the opponent as arguments are made on the basis of these evidences.
Moreover, due to the numerous premises of evidential arguments, and the complexity involved in establishing each premise, it might take anywhere from several minutes to several decades just to move pass the first premise in almost any argument used in evidentialism. Of course, in almost every case, there are many premises that the unbeliever will never agree on. And since these premises depend on irrational methods to establish (sensation, intuition, induction, science, etc.), evidentialism will allow the stubborn unbeliever to indefinitely maintain his resistance.
Therefore, unless the opponent blindly believes the Christian concerning these evidences, or unless from previous exposure he has already been convinced of them (with just as little justification as the believer now uses them), the best that the evidentialist can hope for against a truly skeptical unbeliever is a stalemate. That said, there are indeed more than enough irrational and gullible unbelievers so that evidentialism tends to achieve greater success than it deserves.
Students in the Real World, 3-1
The university is supposed to be an institution for learning, research, and the exchange of ideas. However, Christians are often disappointed that many of these ideas, advanced as established knowledge, are nothing more than false claims and irrational biases that undermine and contradict the biblical faith. Because there is much opposition against Christianity in the university, it is a place where your faith will be tested.
For some people, the pressure is so insignificant that they barely notice it, while others undergo constant struggle, wrestling with questions that come from all sides. Some assume that the university teach the truth, and they wish to hold on to their faith even when the two conflict, or they try to somehow harmonize them. Then, a number of students outright abandon their profession of faith. These are the most foolish and worthless.
Part of the pressure that believers experience in the university is produced by the false perception that the people there are intelligent. Perception is important because many Christians overestimate the unbelievers they meet, and thus fail to notice their intellectual blunders. My faith was never under any threat in the university, since I found the non-Christian students and professors rather unintelligent and irrational. Holding on to my faith was not a problem. The challenge was in limiting blatant displays of disdain for their scholarship.
Believers must derive an accurate perspective concerning the non-Christian intellect from Scripture, which teaches us that all non-Christians are foolish and wicked, and that Christians are the ones enlightened by God's Spirit and instructed by his Word. This means that, whereas the believer should be able to defend his faith, there is no way that any non-Christian can justify what he believes and how he behaves. Non-Christians are the ones who should be intimidated by us, for fear that we will expose their irrational thinking and depraved lifestyle.
Now, when entering an intellectual conflict with an unbeliever, first you need to stand on a strong foundation, and possess a firm grasp of your own position. This means that you must attain an accurate and comprehensive understanding of Christian theology. The Bible exhibits perfect truth and coherence, and to the extent that your theology is faithfully derived from it, it will exhibit the same intellectual perfection. That which is intellectually perfect is also intellectually invincible. But if your worldview is infested with humanism, pluralism, inclusivism, empiricism, scientism, or even Arminianism, inconsistent Calvinism, and other unbiblical teachings, then it is vulnerable to attack.
The content of your theology is essential, and you need more than a superficial understanding of it. It is insufficient to merely memorize the correct formulations of biblical doctrines, but you need to know their biblical warrants as well as the relationships between these doctrines. Only then can your attack and defense become consistent and fluid at the same time, flowing naturally with the conversation without hesitation or compromise. You will not become stuck to reciting theological formulas, and you will not be confounded just because the opponent alters the language of some old arguments and objections.
Students in the Real World, 2-QE
- As a new academic year begins, what changes are happening in your life? Are there new problems and new opportunities? What are they, and why do they matter? Are these changes internal or external? Are they spiritual, intellectual, or social? How are you responding to these changes? Is there a constant principle or a reference point that governs your decisions?
- Do you agree that you should consider yourself a Christian above all else? And is this how you truly think of yourself? Scripture teaches us to train in the faith as soldiers and athletes. Have you been doing that? Cite concrete examples – actions you performed, decisions you made – illustrating that your faith is indeed your first priority.
- Can you think of instances when you failed to put your faith first? In what ways have you compromised your faith or the time and attention that you give to spiritual things? Cite examples.
- What can you do to improve? Do not answer in general terms or in terms of feelings and resolutions, although these are helpful, but provide specific solutions tailored for your situation. Name the hours, days of the week, durations, locations, actions, and so on. The reason for this is not to become legalistic, but it is because a plan that is too vague might never be carried out.
- List the churches and fellowships that gather on and around campus. Consider their characteristics in detail. Consider their strengths and weaknesses, their faithfulness to Scripture, to the Great Commission, and available ministry opportunities. Consider how you would relate to each group. Take time to pray, think, and investigate before committing yourself to any of them.
- Is "team ministry" always better? When is it better, and when is it not? Does the quality of the "team" members have anything to do with it? How much of our idea of team ministry came from the secular business world? How much of it came from Scripture?
- Consider the group projects in school. Are there occasions when you prefer to work alone? And are there occasions when you prefer to work in a group? Why? And why do some professors make students work in groups anyway? Are they right?
- What are the differences between school projects, business projects, and church or ministry projects? What are the differences in beliefs, purposes, and the grounds for unity and cooperation?
- Are there other cliches, whether from the church or from the world, that you should reject, redefine, or at least reconsider? Give examples.
Students in the Real World, 2-1
Many professing Christians lose their zeal or apostatize from the faith when major transitions occur in their lives. One reason for this is that when a person enters a new situation that demands his time and attention, and in which he wishes to excel, he must reassess his priorities. New items are added to his daily routine, and some old ones are abandoned. For some, if God makes the list at all, sometimes he is relegated to an appendix at the bottom. Christians often deceive themselves into thinking that they can get everything else done first so that they can then turn to give their faith quality time without distraction.
However, the Lord admonishes us to think in the opposite direction (Matthew 6:33). Thus one of the first principles that any believer in any phase of his life must enforce is to honor God as the center of his daily living and to make communion with God the foundation for all his other activities. You are not a student who is struggling to remain a Christian on the side, but you are a Christian who happens to be a student at this time.
This sounds cliché, but it is a true teaching that must be implemented. Just because you have heard it many times does not mean that you are doing it. We are talking about more than an attitude, since it requires you to arrange all your activities around your faith. It should affect every decision regarding how you will spend your time and energy. We are talking about a way of thinking that governs your life and produces concrete results. You actually have to do something and make changes, and it should be obvious when you are not doing it.
For example, your academic schedule should be built around your faith and make way for it. Signing up for several demanding courses might make an impressive transcript, and taking on several more might even ensure an early graduation. However, if it means that it will take time away from the things of God – such as study, prayer, fellowship, and ministry – then you must curb your academic ambitions. As long as you have the attitude that you will "make room" for your faith in your schedule, you will keep on piling up sports, clubs, parties, and so on, so that even on a good day you might have only ten minutes left at the end of the night for prayer, right before you fall fast asleep.
Speaking of sleep, how about waking up an hour early every morning for prayer? When I was in high school, I woke up at 5:30 every morning so that I could pray for forty-five to ninety minutes before breakfast. There is no more appropriate way to start a day. But there is no need to imitate someone else or to become legalistic about this – the point is that you will always have more than enough time for the things of God if you make time for them first.
As a Christian, I never crammed for an exam in high school and the university. In fact, I never lost sleep over any type of school work. I never worked past bedtime. Even when I had a paper due or an exam the following day, after spending a limited amount of time on it, I would stop everything and return to my biblical studies and ministry work. This is not to say that every person must follow this pattern or that it is wrong to cram for exams. Occasional exceptions that take time away from prayer and ministry might be acceptable (although I did not permit that for myself), but the believer must make sure that he does not make a habit out of it, and habits are built on repeated exceptions until they are no longer exceptions.
In any case, I did not neglect my school work and my grades. Academic performance was part of my Christian witness, not only before men, but mainly before God, since a believer must diligently labor at the tasks given to him. I maintained a high GPA all through my years in high school and university, and graduated with honors. It is always possible to put your faith first and still obtain above average grades; however, depending on various factors, such as your academic abilities, you might have to design a more manageable course load and social life than you would otherwise prefer. And if you mind your faith, it will improve your performance in other areas. God is able to grant wisdom to his people not only when it comes to spiritual things, but also in "all kinds of literature and learning" (Daniel 1:17).
Faith is not entirely a private matter. There is also the matter of church fellowship. If your school is close to home, then there is no need to change anything. But if you are a boarding student, you will have to find a new place for corporate worship and ministry. Although Christian groups and churches abound on and around many campuses, many of them are apathetic in spirit, confused in doctrine, and thus dangerous for new and untaught believers. They will not do much to sustain or further your spiritual progress. So unless you happen to find one of the better ones, the sole reason for attending is often to offer your assistance and encouragement, and as you do so God shall energize your faith and teach you his ways.
It is often said that believers require constant fellowship to even survive, let alone to thrive in the faith. Here is another cliche, but this time it is false. In his providence, God sometimes ordains that a person should stand alone. The key is in learning that a believer is never truly alone, for God is with him. Before they abandoned him, Jesus said to his disciples, "But a time is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me" (John 16:32). Are we to pattern ourselves after Christ in every way but this?
Sometimes it is argued that even Christ surrounded himself with disciples to help him in his work. However, it is obvious from the Gospels that except for helping him with some practical chores, the disciples were more of a burden to him than anything else. He was repeatedly annoyed by them and rebuked them for their lack of faith and understanding. He gathered these disciples not because he needed them, but because they needed him to teach them, so that they could become his witnesses and enter their own ministries after his ascension.
Then, people are fond of talking about "team ministry" and the "apostolic company," using Paul as the prime example. Of course Paul preferred to work together with other faithful believers, and so should we, but he also realized that people were not always dependable. He wrote, "At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them. But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. And I was delivered from the lion's mouth" (2 Timothy 4:16-17). Against what many teach nowadays, Paul rejected the idea that a believer will surely fall if he stands alone.
Here is the difference between a leader and a follower. It is not that a leader prefers to stand alone, but that through faith in God he can stand alone, and he can function very well as he does so. In fact, sometimes you are most "alone" when there are believers all around you — consider the three thousand men from Judah who betrayed Samson to the Philistines (Judges 15:11). If in God's providence you must stand alone, then also know that you are able to do it, because he is faithful to keep you from falling.
Students in the Real World, 1-QE
- Reflect on your childhood and early education. Even then you were living in the "real" world. What were some of the challenges that you had to face? How did you face them? Did you deal with them as a Christian, and if not, what would you have done differently if you had been a Christian? What Christian counsel would you give to a child or someone who is just starting school?
- Reflect on the differences between this period and the previous stages of your life. Have you taken on greater responsibilities? What are they?
- Consider the changes and the additional responsibilities that you will face in the next stage of your life. What might they be? Will you be passing on from fantasy to reality, or will there be significant overlap in the issues that you must address?
- How did the previous stages of your life prepare you for this period of your life? How are you now preparing for the next stage of your life?
- To begin with, why are these stages and periods of your life defined by external factors and by society, such as childhood, school, vocation, retirement, and so on? Is there any justification for this? Is there something that is constant in your life, or something that proceeds on a different schedule?
- Is there an overarching principle or purpose that guides and unites these different periods of your life? What is it? In what way are you governed by this overarching principle, and in what way are you governed by these stages of life (school, career, family, retirement, etc.)?
- How would a non-Christian answer these questions? And what would you think about his answers? If you conclude that an unbeliever's reply can only end in futility and despair, how does your faith make any difference? Is the difference only psychological, or is it of greater import?
- If you are not a college student, modify these questions so that they apply to your present situation, and then try to answer them.
Students in the Real World, 1-1
Young people are often told that they must obtain an education to prepare for "the real world." This common expression is considered useful when one wants to make a point, but there are many things wrong with it, so many that it is impossible to offer a complete list here. So we must be selective as to what we will say about it, and keep the discussion relevant to our topic.
One major problem with the expression is that, in a context like ours, it is almost never used to distinguish the real world from something that is unreal. Instead, the distinction is made between one part of the world and another part of the world that is just as real. If education prepares people for the "real" world, then what world are the student living in right now? Are they living in an imaginary world? Even a dream is a real dream – it occurs in the "real" world. But school life is more than a dream. The expression makes a distinction that is based on perceived significance and permanence, and not the ontology of difference realities. Thus it is misleading; in fact, it can contribute to a disastrous mindset.
Since it is used in various contexts, and since those who use it are careless and imprecise (otherwise they would not use it at all), the expression has a range of meanings. In any case, a person is surely mistaken if he calls a part of the world "the real world" in contrast to another part of the world that is just as real. Perhaps most people have never considered the expression, and they use it because of custom. However, besides this explanation, there is certainly also a measure of arrogance behind it – one is so centered on that tiny part of the world that he lives in or cares about that he refers to that alone as the "real" world. The truth is that if we would number all the infants, students, monks, peasants, the whole rural population of China, and all the people excluded by the expression, we will find that the "real" world is in fact so small that most people – real people – are not living in it.
There is an important implication for theology. It is often asserted that Christians are called to engage the culture, so that it is unbiblical to withdraw from the "real" world. If there is a sound idea behind this, it is obscured by the terrible expression. What exactly is this "real" world that we are not supposed to withdraw from? Monasteries are as real as anything, and hermits can live in real caves and shacks. Is it sinful to be a farmer where the closest neighbors are miles away? Is it necessarily unbiblical to be a researcher way out there at the South Pole? Things are not more real just because you are closer to the city or financial districts.
A thinking person would not be swayed by an admonition that rests on such an expression (or the idea implied by it), because he perceives that the one who speaks this way is self-centered, condescending, and not very intelligent. Whether he uses these words or not, he urges others to engage "the real world" when what he means is that they should enter his world, the very tiny area in which he functions.
To call life after school the "real" world is an insult to students. It is to minimize their significance, struggles, responsibilities, and accomplishments. School is the real world. By the "real" world, parents often refer to the period of life when their children have finished school and would begin to make their own income. Thus the children discover that their parents' whole conception of reality is based on making a living – only when one has reached this stage does life really starts to happen. Those who are able to think a little deeper then begin to despise their parents' counsel on life. Insofar as the way that these parents talk reflects how they truly think, it is hard to blame the children for losing respect for them.
As I address those of you who are students, I am not going to tell you that what you are doing has significance because you are preparing for the real world. No, you are in the real world now – you have been in it since you were conceived. It is true that you are preparing for the next major phase of your lives, but you are not just preparing – you are living in the real world now.
Of course, even those who do not use the expression can commit the same error as those who do, and that is to measure the significance of a period of life relative to the generation of income, or any other arbitrary or unbiblical standard. Scripture demands us to regard every phase of our lives as significant, because it is lived before the sight of God.
On the one hand, this means that we must acknowledge your accomplishments and not minimize your struggles. But on the other hand, it also means that we must insist on your responsibilities, requiring from you right thinking and right behavior now, and that we must call attention to the ramifications of your actions for both the present and the future. In other words, wherever you are in this world, you are Christians living in the real world.
Students in the Real World, 0
Introduction
The following was originally produced as a single lecture to students who were returning to school for a new academic year. For this publication, I divided the text into several chapters and performed a thorough revision on them. This allowed me to properly develop the major ideas and to present them in a more usable form. Moreover, a "Questions and Exercises" section was added at the end of each chapter to prolong the reader's attention on the ideas presented, and to help him personalize them.
Although the original intent was to address college students, especially undergraduates who are entering their freshman year, many of the principles and suggestions here are easily applied to other situations. Those transitioning or returning to high school should be able to adopt what is said here without much modification. And some of the ideas presented are general biblical teachings that are relevant to believers living at any stage of life.
Since academics occupy much of a student's time, in what follows significant attention is given to a believer's intellectual engagement with non-Christian thinking in the context of school life. It is understood that school involves more than academic studies, and this is why I also touch upon other areas, although nothing exhaustive can be expected of a short text such as this. Nevertheless, I trust that what follows will provide useful instruction and encouragement to Christian students committed to advancing the kingdom of heaven on the earth through their words and deeds.
Finally, since the intended audience consists of students who closely follow this ministry, the article expects some familiarity or at least easy access to our previous materials. For this reason, it does not always bother to support claims and explain doctrines that we have discussed and established in other places.
Healing and Unbelief
The following is taken from A Helping Hand by Arie Elshout (Reformation Heritage Books, 1997), p. 11-12 and 14.
The absence of healing upon prayer need not, but may mean that there are special causes which impede the recovery of the sick person. The greatest sin — which however is least acknowledged, confessed, mourned over, and combatted — is unbelief. Members of the charismatic movement are not the only ones who accuse us of lack of faith. The Lord Himself does so as well. How often didn't the Lord reprimand His disciples for their unbelief? Don't we sometimes respond all too easily: "I cannot believe as I would like to, …I cannot take hold of it upon command"?
How often have I not detected within myself that upon seeking God's face for myself, my family, my church members, or other patients, my faith in healing upon prayer was seriously deficient! How touching and most humbling are God's rebukes in His Word regarding lack of faith in His ability and willingness to have mercy in answer to prayer! Don't we often protect our unbelief in daily life, rather than confess it with sorrow and shame?
…It is indeed possible that the Lord will grant immediate improvement upon prayer — even complete healing. We read of such cases in the Bible and such cases occur today as well.
Recommended
The Best Physician
Cessationism and Rebellion
Cessationism and Speaking in Tongues
Biblical Healing
Prayer and Revelation
Faith to Move Mountains
Halloween
As one would expect, I am occasionally asked to comment on Halloween around this time of the year. Well, there has been so much written on the subject that information about Halloween is easy to find, and at this time I have no interest in producing my own version of a biblical response. So I will just offer a brief personal perspective on the matter.
When I was little, my family lived in a "villa" of large and beautiful apartment complexes. Among our neighbors were many American, British, and German children. Every year on Halloween, they would dress up like little demons and witches, knocking on every door to ask for candy. Back then I thought that they were beggars. I wondered why they had to beg at the same time, and was amazed that in one night they could beg enough candy to last for a whole year. Since then my understanding has matured. Now I realize that they were also trespassers, and some of them were also vandals — evidently, that was what the "trick" part meant.
And this is all I am going to say about that.
Recommended
The Arminianism Within
The following is an edited email correspondence.
I have been thinking about Hebrews 6:4-6, and I am still struggling to be more impartial with it…. I recall that you have talked about these verses, but I am still struggling…
Besides my own remarks, there are a number of commentaries that adequately address Hebrews 6. It is good to read and review them. After that, the struggle is not in attaining exegetical precision with the passage, but it is in the part of you that still tends to read it as an Arminian — as a self-centered rebel — when there is no warrant for it.
Consider the example of John 3:16. It says that whoever believes will not perish but have eternal life, which both Calvinism and Arminianism affirm, but it does not say who will believe or why they will believe. Thus the verse affirms only salvation by faith, and has no relevance to the disagreement between Calvinism and Arminianism until you bring other biblical passages into the discussion. However, many people want to read it as Arminians, and so they think that Arminianism is what it proves. They take the words "whoever believes" to mean something so different as, "Every man has free will, and anyone can by his free will believe in Christ apart from God's foreordination and direct control." I might as well deduce the entire Alice in Wonderland when someone says "Good morning" or "Have a nice day." The same goes with the word "world" in that verse. Somehow, without argument, it must refer to every single individual in the entire history of humankind.
Likewise, Hebrews 6 says that whoever satisfies the listed conditions and then withdraw from the faith cannot repent again. Since this is what it says, then this is what it means. Now, we can argue about whether these conditions completely define a believer. We could argue from the example of Judas, who exercised the very powers of the world to come, but Jesus knew from the beginning that he was "a devil." He was never truly converted. However, even this discussion is unnecessary, since it is irrelevant to the main point of the passage. Even if it describes a believer, does a believer actually withdraw? Does it ever happen? The passage does not say. The only mention of this topic points toward the other direction: "Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case — things that accompany salvation" (v. 9). The writer was convinced that at least the original readers would not suffer the fate that he describes. What is it then? The passage cannot be used to support Arminianism, since even the relevance is absent.
I could say, "If God dies, then the earth will also disappear," or something to that effect. The statement is certainly true. But will it ever happen? Is it even possible? It would be pure lunacy to infer from the statement, "Therefore, it is possible for God to die." The statement does not address the topic at all. Now, we could argue that the words "if God dies" contain a categorical error, rendering the phrase meaningless, but other than that, the statement makes an important point, that God is the sustainer of all things, and that all things continuously depend on him. This is what it implies, and one cannot read more into it unless he does so by force.
Part of the difficulty in confronting Arminianism, then, is to overcome your own Arminianism — whatever of it that remains in your heart.
– Recommended –
From vincentcheung.com:
"Forced to Believe" (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, (1) , (2)
More than a Potter (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
Freewill Offerings and Human Freedom
Creatures Cannot Initiate Motion
1 Timothy 2:3-6 and 2 Peter 3:9
From rmiweb.org:
The Hitler Ad Hominem
The other day I was talking to someone at work, and he told me that no one should judge another person's belief or religion. In response, I said that if that were the case, then Hitler was justified in what he did. He answered that Hitler believed he was right, so to him it was right. Please comment on this.
A person must be careful when he tries to reduce his opponent's position to absurdity or to deduce from the position an implication that even his opponent will not accept. We call this the ad hominem argument, that is, a logical ad hominem rather than an ad hominem of irrelevant personal attack. When used incorrectly, the tactic can backfire.
It is best to reduce an opponent's position to logical absurdity rather than just cultural absurdity. You can bring out the implications of a position such that someone from a particular background or culture would consider it absurd and thus unacceptable, but this does not refute the position. It tells us something about the person and his culture, but the position itself is unharmed. Only something that is logically absurd is truly wrong, refuted, and indefensible.
If we confine the discussion to a narrow context, excluding biblical premises or any other moral standard, then there is nothing logically absurd in what Hitler did or in the position that what he did could be considered right. So if you press a position only to a point where it is culturally unacceptable, then the argument backfires when your opponent breaks with culture and accepts it anyway.
You must never rest your case on an ad hominem, or give the impression that you do. To rest on an ad hominem can mean that you really have no positive reason for your faith. Then, if you give the impression that you rest on an ad hominem and it backfires, your opponent will think that he has surprised you and that he now has the upper hand.
In preaching the gospel and defending the faith, it is insufficient to show only that you are less wrong. You must show that you are right, and that your opponent is wrong. Even an ad hominem that shows logical absurdity in your opponent can prove only that he is wrong. And an ad hominem that shows cultural absurdity, if it works on the opponent, can prove only that he is inconsistent. It does not even show that his basic position is mistaken.
When used carefully and correctly, an ad hominem can be an effective way to begin a conversation, to stun your opponent in debate, or sometimes even to refute a position (without necessarily proving the opposite). Perhaps the most important and useful purpose of an ad hominem is to drive the debate toward the deeper questions of metaphysics and epistemology. These are the purposes for which I would sometimes use ad hominem arguments, but I would insist that my own position does not depend on them, especially when the conclusions of these arguments do not demonstrate logical absurdity in my opponent, or when refuting his position this way does not prove my own.
Given your opponent's point of view, his answer was correct, in the sense that it was consistent with what he said. Unless there is an absolute moral standard, there is no rational justification for condemning Hitler. So you cannot say that because we condemn Hitler, there must be an absolute standard – this reverses the correct order of reasoning. You might soften this and say that because we condemn Hitler, it implies that we believe in an absolute standard. But whether this is effective still depends on how your opponent responds. He might say that then we are wrong in having a standard, so that we should abandon it.
You might insist that, without an absolute standard, we cannot account for ethical principles. Your opponent could answer that we should therefore have no ethical principles. From here you can still win the debate, but you have already complicated matters too much. It is useless to argue by saying, "Unless X is true, you cannot account for Y," unless X is really true, and unless it is really necessary to account for Y. So by complicating the debate, without proving or refuting anything, you have only delayed at least by one step the need to discuss the real questions, which concern metaphysics and epistemology.
Here is also where pseudo-presuppositionalism errs. It habitually demands the opponent to account for things that are inherently irrational, that cannot and should not be defended in the first place. Then it claims that the biblical worldview can account for them, but never succeeds in showing how. It further compounds the problem by making what is inherently irrational the very precondition for knowing the biblical worldview, thus also shutting itself out of it. So in the end it only sets up another school of irrationalism. In contrast, we acknowledge that the biblical worldview is perfectly rational, so that it excludes all things that are not. What we take away from the unbelievers, we do not embrace but throw away.
Recommended
Ultimate Questions
Presuppositional Confrontations
Apologetics in Conversation
Captive to Reason
Professional Morons
Half Empty, Half Full
Biblical Rationalism vs. Psycho Assertionism
The Easter Bunny Trap
~ Taken from Vincent Cheung, Blasphemy and Mystery. Footnotes excluded. ~
I have been talking with an atheist and he brings up an issue that I am not sure how to answer. He asks if I can show that the Easter Bunny is not real. It seems that there are problems with any answer that I could give. If I say that it is not real, then he will ask me how I know this. So how should I reply?
Since I lack the context, it is difficult to guess where he intends to go with this. There are several possibilities. Perhaps if you are unable to prove that the Easter Bunny is not real but nevertheless consider it rational to believe that it is not real, then he will say the same thing about God. That is, he can then take the position that, although he cannot disprove the existence of God, it is still rational to disbelieve in his existence simply because of a lack of empirical evidence. This way, he gets you to commit to the idea that it is irrational to believe in something that one cannot see or has not seen. At this point, it does not matter whether there is indeed a lack of empirical evidence for God's existence, or whether we can know anything by empiricism, since we are just speculating about the kind of argument that this atheist is setting up, and this might be what he is attempting.
As with many objections against Christianity, this one suffers from irrelevance. Although this lack of relevance is not as obvious as some of the other objections, it is still easy to perceive. Metaphysically, God is in a class by himself. Unlike the Easter Bunny, whose existence would not necessarily affect other things that are equally insignificant to the construction and operation of the universe, God is necessarily related to everything in the universe, for he is the creator and sustainer of them all.
With this in mind, consider classical and evidential apologetics. Forgetting about their fatal deficiencies for now, their proponents claim that they could reason to God from their contact with creation as the starting point. But no such claim is made for the Easter Bunny, since the Bunny does not have such a metaphysical status that I can reason to it from a rock I find on the street or from my self-consciousness. Therefore, it is irrelevant to the debate about the existence of God as to whether the Bunny is real or not, or whether I can prove that the Bunny is real or not.
There is a wrong way to answer the challenge. Many Christians might insist that the Easter Bunny is not real even though they cannot rationally justify this denial. But this is to fall into the trap that, as we speculate above, the atheist is setting up. The worst response that you can offer is to insist that the Bunny is not real even though you cannot prove this, nor do you know that it is not real. In fact, this might be the reason why you have difficulty with the question – you are stuck on thinking that the Bunny is not real, but you cannot provide rational justification for this. So, do not fall into the trap. Instead, you could just tell the truth – say that you do not know if the Bunny is real or not real, and you cannot prove it either way. But this has nothing to do with the debate, since your claim is that, unlike the Bunny, you can argue for God's existence. And if the Easter Bunny exists, God is also its creator and sustainer.
The power of a biblical approach to apologetics, which I call biblical rationalism, is that as long as you possess a sound and coherent understanding of the Christian worldview, and as long as you have a basic ability to apply logical thinking, you can blast through any trap in debate. Whether or not you realize that the opponent is setting you up, you can jump right into any trap and it will turn against him. Since biblical revelation is infallible and invincible, as long as the contents and the patterns of your thinking remain synchronized with it, you will naturally win any debate. Any trap that the opponent sets up can only expose your soundness and coherence as well as his ignorance and inconsistency. However, this is not true with all other approaches to apologetics, including pseudo-presuppositionalism, which makes empiricism its own epistemological precondition. Regrettably, this is also the predominant school of presuppositional apologetics.
In any case, from the perspective of biblical rationalism, you have him right where you want him. One can hardly expect a more helpful opponent. This is because his question provides a shortcut to the foundational issues of epistemology and metaphysics, and commits him to deal with you on this level. A wide range of options has opened up to you.
In fact, you can seize the Easter Bunny by the throat and throw it right back at him. Make it his problem. Make him deal with it. How can he deny that there is a Easter Bunny if he cannot disprove it? Maybe he can just reserve judgment on the Bunny, but he cannot do the same with God, because he must deal with your positive arguments for the rational necessity of biblical revelation. So God is not in the same position as the Easter Bunny. Further, if he cannot show a clear relevance between knowing about the Easter Bunny and knowing about God, then why does he bring it up in a debate about God's existence? This undermines his intelligence, and calls into question his assumption that his denial of God's existence is rational.
And what if, for the sake of argument, you say that you have met the Easter Bunny? Is he going to believe your testimony, or to disbelieve any testimony that he has not directly verified? If he chooses the former, then why does he not believe your testimony about God? If he chooses the latter, then he must also disbelieve everything else that he has not directly verified, including evolution, most if not all other scientific theories, the daily news, and so on.
The above is a negative argument – it would be wrong for the Christian to then say that we do believe human testimony without direct verification. Both options are wrong. Here is where classical, evidential, and pseudo-presuppositional apologetics get dragged back down to the unbeliever's level. The pseudo-presuppositionalist is especially eager to assert that without the biblical presuppositions, the unbeliever cannot account for the things that he takes for granted. But who says we should take any of these things for granted? Even with the biblical presuppositions, there is still no rational justification for them.
We cannot limit the application of rationality by mere preference or convenience, exempting those things that we would like to retain for ourselves. Many of the things that people take for granted are outright false in the first place, such as the reliability of sensation and the scientific method. Who really needs to believe the scientists and the news, especially in this context where we require certainty? We believe the testimony of God, which is the topic of debate. Contrary to its claim, rather than maintaining an antithesis between biblical and non-biblical thinking, pseudo-presuppositionalism is in fact the great compromise, the grand surrender, to anti-Christian principles.
By now you have answered his question about the Easter Bunny, and now it is his turn. He has not answered it, for indeed he cannot. So press the point again and again, and again and again. Be as gentle as you can, but as harsh as you need. Your aggressiveness should in part depend on his attitude. We know that all unbelievers are sinful and defiant, but some are more blatant in their arrogance.
There are times when a hardened scoffer should be humiliated, even in front of other people, or especially in front of other people. If this is what needs to be done, then give him no rest and show no restraint. Question him about it from every conceivable angle. Bring it up again and again even in future conversations. Make fun of him, as Elijah mocked the false prophets. Send him a chocolate bunny when Easter comes around. Ask him to gather all his non-Christian friends, then challenge them with only this question and defeat all of them with it at the same time. Make that Bunny haunt his dreams. Make him see and admit that he has been the irrational fool all along, and that the Christian faith is the only spiritual light and rational hope for mankind.
Recommended
Ultimate Questions
Presuppositional Confrontations
Apologetics in Conversation
Captive to Reason
Professional Morons
A Moron By Any Other Name
Commentary on First Peter (p. 146-149)
The Context of 1 Peter 3:15
Power Apologetics
Half Empty, Half Full
John Stackhouse and "Humble" Apologetics
Biblical Rationalism vs. Psycho Assertionism
Pragmatism and the Curriculum
The following is an edited email correspondence.
In Preach the Word, you mention that we should "read the classics." Do you have a particular list of works in mind? If there is not a full list, are there some must-reads?
I do not have in mind a specific collection of works. There the context is the philosophy of education, and I make the point that if we allow pragmatic concerns to drive education, then the curriculum would become extremely narrow, since our lives are indeed very narrow relative to all the subjects and skills that we could learn. Under a pragmatic philosophy, it is hard to justify putting into the curriculum anything that the students will not need.
The student who complains that he will never need calculus is very likely correct. It is true that one might not know what vocation he will select in the future, and so he cannot know if he will need calculus. But then the only pragmatic reason for him to learn it is the mere possibility that he will need it in the future. However, the reason is weak, since the possibility is rather remote. It is certainly not worth the time and money to learn so many things that will turn out to be useless. Many people will not need physics, or biology, or the classics, or most of the things that they learn in school. Given a pragmatic philosophy, a student could skip most of the materials in high school and college, and go straight to a specialized vocational school where he is taught only what he needs to know.
This is the point that I try to raise against the "learning for doing" model proposed by Jay Adams. Like many authors I have read, he is under the popular impression that biblical "wisdom" is mainly practical rather than intellectual and abstract. This is outrageously false. Biblical wisdom deals with both the intellectual and the practical, the abstract and the concrete, but those who hold to the popular theory are blinded to the abstract aspect of it. Even though it is everywhere, they do not see it because they do not want to see it. They are trapped by the notion that Hebrew (biblical) thinking is practical, and Greek (pagan) thinking is theoretical. But this simplistic distinction is false.
On the other hand, we cannot object to the pragmatic theory in favor of another just so we can produce and justify a wider curriculum, for then we would still be driven by pragmatism, only that we have changed the intended goal from professional need to intellectual breadth. Here we notice that the pragmatic theory does not tell us which goal to select. It is chosen by some other standard or even arbitrarily. And after that, it cannot provide a rational justification for our choice.
The biblical model for a full education must be driven by the inherent value of knowledge, and not by pragmatic concerns. There is value in learning itself, in knowing itself. The most important application of this principle pertains to theological and biblical knowledge. The knowledge of God itself is valuable, a rare commodity that he gives only to his chosen ones (John 15:15), whom he calls his friends. And of course his friends would do what he says, putting into practice what he has disclosed to them. But the pragmatic philosophy would regard God's revelation as something that is only for practice and obedience — something to be used — and not a valued treasure in and of itself. Which is the higher view of God and Scripture?
So I oppose the cliche that we should not study "theology for theology's sake." Of course we must study theology for theology's sake! Theology is a systematic and coherent understanding of God's self-revelation, so that to deny its inherent value is to spit in God's face. His thoughts are wonderful, intriguing, even mesmerizing. The pragmatic perspective has neglected the inherent beauty of divine revelation and of knowledge. But of course we must implement this revelation in our lives, and we must obey his commands — I assert this in even stronger terms than the pragmatic writers. The error is in thinking that just because something is meant to be put into practice, it is therefore something that has no inherent value, or that its value is only in its intended effects.
Also, the underlying conflict of the debate on this issue is often between intellectualism and anti-intellectualism. Even those authors who are most well-known for fighting against anti-intellectualism often commit the above error, that is, to argue from a pragmatic perspective, or to think that biblical wisdom is mainly practical.
Recommended
Whosoever Will May Come
The following is an edited email correspondence.
When I speak to my parents and pastor, it is typical for them to bring up the line "whosoever will may come" as the statement that somehow proves man's free will and refutes the idea that salvation comes from God alone.
One of the most frequent fallacies that people commit is the fallacy of irrelevance. Therefore, whenever we come across an argument or objection that supposedly refutes what Scripture teaches, sometimes it suffices to simply ask, "So what?"
Like many of the objections from Arminians, this one entirely misses the point. Perhaps they have in mind Revelation 22:17, which says, "whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (KJV). Since this is what God says, we readily agree with it, but then what? Who will actually come? It does not tell us. Or, to be more precise, why does anyone decide to come? What is the metaphysical and spiritual cause behind the person's decision and his change in disposition? That is the question. The statement from Revelation, or any other "whosoever" statement for that matter, tells us only about what is available to or what will happen to the person who comes. It does not tell us why anyone would come, or why a person comes when he does.
Here is something that I wrote in Born Again, my exposition of John 3:
I can say, "Whoever becomes a fish can breath under water." The statement is true, but it does not mean that a person can become a fish anytime he wishes. In fact, any inference about one's ability is strictly invalid, since the statement contains no information about ability except for the fish's ability to breath under water. Whether or not it is possible for a person to become a fish, one can infer nothing about it from the statement itself, but it only informs us as to what would happen to a person who turns into a fish.
Moreover, even if it is possible for a person to become a fish, the statement says nothing about how this is possible, or whether it is within the person's own power to do so. God is certainly able to turn a man into a fish, but a man "cannot make even one hair white or black" (Matthew 5:36). A statement like the one that I have made tells us nothing about a person's ability, but information about ability must be obtained elsewhere.
Whenever we are talking about something that is impossible with man – such as for a man to turn himself into a fish – it means that it will either never happen, or God must make it happen by his omnipotence.
I then offer an illustration from Matthew 19:23-26. Please see p. 53-55 for the complete section. Or on this site, see Born Again (41) and (42).
Arminians have no respect for the actual language of the text, which means that they have no respect for its author. They are determined to infer from it whatever they want, even when a passage does not address the topic at all.
In answer to the relevant question of why anyone comes to Christ at all, the Bible says that it is God who chooses the person, changes his nature, and controls his mind, and that is what causes him to "come." We have established this from Scripture again and again, so we will not repeat the information here. Anyway, this is the biblical teaching that the Arminians must refute. As it is, their objection amounts to saying, "Calvinism is wrong because the Bible teaches that anyone who believes in Christ will be saved." But this does not even apply to the debate, since Calvinism does not assert that some people who believe in Christ will nevertheless be condemned. No, Calvinism agrees that all believers are saved. The question is and has always been who will believe in Christ, and what causes these people to believe in him.
Whenever you are confronted with an objection against the Christian faith, it is always advisable to question the relevance of what is asserted and make the opponent demonstrate its relevance. In this case, sometimes without being aware of it, it seems that the Arminians assume that God's command, which incurs human responsibility, also presupposes human ability or freedom. But as I often mention, although God's command and man's responsibility are inseparably related, there is no biblical or logical relationship at all between divine command (or sovereignty) and human freedom (or ability), or between human responsibility and human freedom. To say that we are responsible has nothing to do with whether we are free, but only with whether God has commanded and whether he will judge. The assumption that connects these unrelated things has never been proved and seldom even attempted in all the history of philosophy and theology, and it is directly contradicted by Scripture. Nevertheless, this unbiblical premise is also shared by many inconsistent Calvinists, leading to an incoherent and embarrassing theological formulation, and the invention of doctrines such as compatibilist freedom.
– Recommended –
From vincentcheung.com:
"Forced to Believe" (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, (1) , (2)
More than a Potter (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
Freewill Offerings and Human Freedom
Creatures Cannot Initiate Motion
From rmiweb.org:
Corporal Punishment
The following is an edited email correspondence.
I support the use of corporal punishment in parenting, but one of my acquaintances said, "How can you teach a child against what is wrong by doing what is wrong?" Others have said that violence against children is never justified. But can we say that using corporal punishment in parenting is violence? I would appreciate your thoughts on these concerns.
Let us first make clear what we are talking about. "Corporal punishment" (or corporeal) sounds more pleasant than what it means. It means to punish the body, the "corporeal" part of the person, so that he experiences physical discomfort, strain, pain, injury, or even death. Of course, when it comes to parenting, we are not interested in injuring or killing the child, but depending on the severity of the misconduct, we are interested in causing discomfort, strain, and pain. The heat of the debate surrounds the practice of hitting the child. Make no mistake about it — hitting the child is exactly what we are talking about. If we use the word "violence" in a general sense, as in to physically strike or attack someone without a moral connotation already attached to the word or the act, then we can freely admit that hitting a child comes under this category. The word is general enough so that there is no need to reject it from the start. The question is whether this kind of violence is morally wrong.
A complete treatment of the corporal punishment of children would consider the relevant biblical verses and the practical aspects of implementing the biblical teaching. The latter would deal with questions such as the parts of the child's body to strike, the proper tools with which to strike, and so on. Since we cannot address any of this in detail here, we will summarize the biblical teaching as follows: (1) Corporal punishment is a moral and practical requirement in parenting; (2) This kind of punishment is called for on occasions when the child defies or deviates from biblical or parental authority; (3) The tool for implementing corporal punishment is the "rod" or an equivalent object; and (4) The "rod" is applied by striking the back side of the child. These four points can be derived from Proverbs 10:13, 13:24, 14:3, 22:15, 23:13-14, 26:3, and 29:15. The objections against this biblical teaching do not get into the details, but they have to do with the very principle of the practice — that is, they arise from the position that corporal punishment is morally wrong. So we will address the topic on this level.
The problem with our opponents is that their thinking is man-centered, or otherwise centered on the wrong reference point. If violence itself is wrong no matter what, then of course corporal punishment is wrong. However, they cannot justify the assumption that violence is wrong in itself. All non-Christian arguments are easily defeated using our regular approach of biblical apologetics. But once we have established that Scripture is to be the first and final authority, we have also established that corporal punishment is a moral and practical necessity, since this is what Scripture teaches. On the other hand, a man-centered ethic produces implications that even our opponents might find unacceptable. We are speaking of violence, but what about abducting and incarcerating a person without his consent (e.g. kidnapping)? If this is wrong in itself, then our opponents must also oppose the prison system, that is, except for those criminals who desire to be imprisoned. In fact, from this perspective, our opponents must not even "ground" their children, but for some this is a preferred method of punishment in parenting.
If violence is wrong in itself, then one cannot apply all kinds of exceptions, qualifications, and contexts to limit the application of this premise. It would be wrong to hit a wall, kick a rock, or cut vegetables into hundreds of pieces. Unless our opponents avoid doing all these things, then their own premise implies that they are mass murderers, even constantly killing large amounts of germs and bacteria with every breath that they take. Every limitation that they place on the principle that violence itself is wrong must be justified. Why does it apply only to humans? Some believe that we must do no violence against animals. But then, how about insects, vegetables, and germs? Why the arbitrary standard? When a virus wrecks havoc in a body, why kill it? Why must we counteract violence with mass murder? If these questions appear ridiculous, it is because our opponents hold a ridiculous position, and these are just some of the absurd implications of the assumption that violence itself is wrong. Thus our opponents are not only unbiblical, irrational, and impractical, but it is also hypocritical for them to insist on the general principle that violence itself is wrong but arbitrarily limit the application of this principle, so that they do not appear to transgress it.
On the other hand, the biblical ethic is God-centered, with divine revelation as the reference point for thinking about moral questions, and for defining right and wrong. Our opponents assert that it is hypocritical to punish a misbehaving child by hitting the child, since hitting people is wrong, and it is something that we tell the child not to do. Again, this would be true only if violence itself is wrong. However, from a biblical perspective, a child has done wrong not because he has done a certain act that is wrong in itself, but because by performing the act he has in some way violated biblical precepts. He has done wrong because he has deviated from God's instructions and defied his authority, whether expressed directly in Scripture or through the parents. The non-Christian standard exists on a much lower level, almost on the level of the act itself. And there it stands in mid-air — there is no justifiable principle behind it.
It is exactly right that we must not teach against what is wrong by doing what is wrong. But what is wrong? It is a violation of God's precepts. It is not wrong in itself to hit someone, even to hit a child, but it is wrong to hit someone in contexts, for reasons, and with motives that are not approved by Scripture. According to Scripture, it is permissible and sometimes even morally necessary to hit or to kill someone. I would have no moral hesitation against killing someone with my own bare hands provided Scripture approves or demands it in that situation (self-defense, execution of a criminal, and so on). I will not give it a second thought afterward, and certainly will not feel guilty about doing it. This is because my conscience submits to God's precepts rather than stands as judge over them. To hesitate on moral grounds when Scripture clearly approves or demands it exposes a person's rebellion against the Lord, and against that which is right. It is to think that our private and unbiblical moral standard is superior to God's own holiness and revealed precepts. Although very few of us will actually face situations in which our commitment to a God-center ethic is tested in this manner, it is indeed an excellent way to discover where our true allegiance rests. Do we honor God with our lips, but then draw a line in our hearts and forbid him to cross our moral sentiments? If so, may our moral sentiments burn in hell, for if our moral sentiments are in fact different from God's moral precepts, and if we follow the former rather than the latter, then we are hypocrites when we call him Lord. Any obedience that we demonstrate is rendered only because God's demands so far agree with our own private standards.
Therefore, it is the refusal to exercise corporal punishment — the refusal to hit a child in the right contexts, for the right reasons, and in the right places — that is immoral and hypocritical. We can apply our opponents' objection against them: "How can we teach against what is wrong by doing what is wrong?" The child has done wrong in violating God's precepts. Are we now to teach this child by also violating God's precepts — that is, by withholding the rod of discipline? Moreover, since "he who spares his rod hates his son" (Proverbs 13:24), and it is the rod that could "save his soul from death" (23:14), it is much more appropriate to charge our opponents with child abuse than those who practice corporal punishment. Of course, not every situation requires the rod, but if you withhold this kind of punishment even when the situation calls for it, then you are a wicked and abusive parent, and you have a deep hatred for your child, so much so that you would rather let him perish, body and soul, than to violate your own false sense of morality or to burden your own feelings. Oh, what a despicable piece of human garbage you are! Why do you hate your child with such passion? Why do you wish destruction upon him? Why do you want him to burn in hell?
Some acts are always forbidden. For example, no context or reason can justify blasphemy. Likewise, murder is never justified. But killing is a more general term, and it is often justified. Violence is even more general. When teaching our children about violence, we must make the proper distinctions and avoid communicating the idea that violence is wrong in itself. It is not always wrong even for a child to strike someone. For example, in the confusion of a kidnapping attempt, or when cornered by a child molester, if a child could strike his assailant hard enough to stun him for even a split second, he might be able to break free and call for help. Whether it is always wise or possible to do this is a separate question, one that parents should seriously consider and then discuss with their children — a child probably should not try anything if the attacker has a knife to his throat. It is true that when we teach a child that violence is sometimes morally acceptable, we must also discuss all the details surrounding the proper use of violence, such as when it is necessary, how to carry it out, what to do afterward, and so on. But right now we are focusing on the morality of the issue, and the point is that in these situations, there is nothing morally wrong for the child to strike or even kill the attacker.
On the other hand, to teach a child that violence itself is wrong is to narrow his options and to doom him in these situations, possibly even to his death. It is to rob him of the tools that he might need to survive. At the crucial moment, he will hesitate, and then the opportunity might be gone forever, or the situation might cross a point of no return. When that happens, the parents have in effect become the attacker's accomplices to destroy the child. And do not forget that one who withholds the rod also refuses to save his child's soul from death (Proverbs 23:14). This is how much our opponents hate their children, and they demand that you treat yours the same way. This unbiblical position against corporal punishment is nothing but man's pride and depravity dressed up as progress and compassion. The price for their self-satisfaction is their children's lives, and to them it is well worth it.