Archive November 2006

Students in the Real World, 5-1

When it comes to engaging anti-Christian ideas, the two major groups of people that you must deal with in the university are the students and the professors. From the spiritual standpoint, they fall under the same category – they are unbelievers – so that we take the same philosophical stance toward both groups. But from a social perspective, there are marked differences in the positions that they occupy in our lives, and these differences carry practical ramifications as to how we must relate to them when preaching the gospel, defending the faith, or just standing our ground. Therefore, for our purpose, it will be helpful to consider the two groups separately.

Then, let us not forget the anti-Christian ideas coming from those who call themselves believers. When you strive to articulate your faith with biblical faithfulness and precision, sometimes the strongest opposition will come from Christians, or those who claim to be Christians. But there is no need to give them special attention here, since it remains that most of them will be either students or professors, so that our discussion will apply to them as well.

Now, we will not spend much time on the students, since they are your peers, and there are no special restrictions when it comes to how you must relate to them.

Perhaps the first thing you should know is that just because a person is a college student does not make him intelligent or rational. In fact, his pride and what little he thinks he knows might make him even more careless. The two implications for apologetics is that there is no need to be intimidated and that it is a mistake to assume that your opponent will readily understand anything about the ultimate questions or the rules for valid argumentation. It is impossible to underestimate unbelievers – most Christians make the mistake of overestimating them, and this generates a mental block in their own minds that prevents them from optimal performance in debate.

As for the practical aspect of dealing with students, I recommend for most cases the use of informal and extended conversations when discussing matters of faith. By "extended" conversations, I refer to repeated discussions that can last from days to months.

Some Christians are used to packaging the entire gospel and its defense in a ten-minute presentation. But this hit-and-run approach is often less than ideal. It takes time to say all the things that you need to say, to dismantle your listener's beliefs, and to fully present your own. Therefore, it is best to take the long-term approach, and maintain communication with the unbelievers. Of course, sometimes this is impossible, God will often do a quick work of conversion through a five-minute presentation of the gospel. But this should not be the norm. There is no reason to hurry with people that you will see over and over again.

How a conversation on faith begins is also important. Some teachings on evangelism assert that there is something defective with your faith unless you inform someone that you are a believer or preach the gospel to him within the first several hours or days of meeting him. And there is certainly no trace of the Spirit of Christ in you if he still does not know that you are a believer after a whole week! Why, you must be quite ashamed of the gospel.

However, there is no requirement in Scripture as to how soon you must let someone know that you are a believer or preach the gospel to the person upon meeting him. Binding the conscience with man-made rules on this matter is a problem at least as severe as the one that it is trying to fix. Of course, if for some reason you think that you should be the one who preaches the gospel to a certain person, and if you have no expectation of meeting that person again, then by all means initiate a conversation on the subject. There is no need to hesitate.

But if it is likely that you will meet the person again and again, then it is often best to wait for an appropriate opportunity. Perhaps this person will bring up a topic that can naturally transition into a discussion about the gospel. This way the person is committed to carry the conversation to a natural conclusion.

Of course, you can just walk up to someone and say, "Do you know Jesus?" And he will say, "No," and walk away. This is fine when you are using a machine gun tactic in street evangelism, and you will get some people's attention this way. But with people you know, and whom you will meet over and over again, a natural entry into the topic is far superior. In fact, you can spend weeks with a gentle application of the "So? Why? Really?" formula to undermine the person's confidence in his own intelligence and belief system before transitioning into an explicit discussion about the ultimate questions and the biblical worldview. So this is not a call to be passive, but to be patient and strategic.

Students in the Real World, 4-2

After the above warning and explanation, it might appear ironic that I am now going to present a formula for limited use in apologetics. However, it is precisely because I am about to present this formula that the preceding comments are necessary, since many people are already too prone to become mechanical in conversation and debate about the faith.

Although formulas should never be necessary, there are at least two acceptable uses for them.

First, formulas can help the beginner and the less accomplished apologist. The formula that I am about to give you will help to begin and sustain a logical analysis of your opponent in debate. It will give you something reliable to fall back on, and thus boost your confidence. But keep in mind that in the long run, dependence on any formula will hinder a person's development, and so it is best to be weaned from its use.

Second, the deliberate use of a formula in debate can serve to humiliate an opponent. That is, one way to expose the foolishness of a non-Christian's philosophy and the ease with which a Christian can refute it is to defeat him through the obvious and repeated use of a simple formula. It demonstrates that his beliefs cannot withstand any rational analysis, and that he cannot answer even the most basic questions, things that even a toddler can ask. This practice also makes it easy for observers to perceive the inferiority of the unbeliever's position.

Then, another reason why I wish to present a formula here is to show you what a good one should look like. Given that it is often already a mistake to use formulas in debate, the problem is further aggravated when these formulas are lengthy, complicated, and inflexible. There are arguments that require a perfect setup – an attentive opponent who does not interrupt, an appropriate starting point for the conversation, and a step-by-step procession from one item to another in the prescribed order. If the argument has any punch at all, it is neutralized when the opponent objects to a premise in the middle of the presentation, so that the whole debate becomes sidetracked.

In contrast, the formula that I will introduce below is simple, flexible, and robust. In fact, it can function in the midst of total chaos. Moreover, except for the formula itself, there is no information to memorize. That said, it has major limitations, but we will discuss them later.

And here is the formula: "So? Why? Really?" This is it. This is the entire formula. It is simple but powerful. Although there are only three words in it, using nothing but these three words, any believer of any aptitude can crush any student, any professor, and any variety or combination of non-Christians.

The word "So?" refers to relevance. If you would stop to consider all the objections against Christianity that you have encountered, you might be surprised to find that many of them are irrelevant to the debate. And even when the topic could be relevant, the unbelievers often fail to show this relevance. The same problem of irrelevance occurs when they present the case for their own positions. Therefore, one way to neutralize their arguments and objections is to question the relevance of what is said, and to demand the opponent to show this relevance.

The word "Why?" refers to justification. Many statements presented as arguments are in fact only assertions. You must ask the opponent why his assertions are true. In response, it is likely that he give you another set of unjustified assertions, so that you will need to ask "why" again. But notice that the other two words are also available to you. You can ask "So?" – that is, you can question the relevance between the two assertions or sets of assertions, and demand your opponent to show this relevance. With only these two words, you can expose the fact that the opponent's position lacks any kind of justification, and that not only are his objections irrelevant, but even the propositions within his own worldview are irrelevant to one another.

The word "Really?" refers to validity. In this context, validity does not refer to the truth of a position, but to the correct form of an argument. A "valid" argument is one in which the conclusion follows from the premises by necessary inference – that is, the premises must logically produce that conclusion, and it is the only possible conclusion given the premises. The question "Really?" is therefore posed against the relationship between premises and conclusions. So when you ask for justification for an assertion made by an unbeliever, and he provides you with an argument to support this assertion, then besides questioning the relevance of the argument, you should also question whether it is logically valid. Reasoning from intuition, sensation, induction, and the scientific method are all invalid, since they all proceed in logical leaps, and none of their conclusions are reached logical necessity.

These three words apply to all non-Christians arguments, whether those that attack the Christian faith or those that defend non-Christian positions. As such, the formula can serve both offensive and defensive purposes in apologetics. Since the arguments and objections from non-Christians are never consistently relevant, justified, and valid, anything that they say in conversation or debate will quickly crumble under these three words. In fact, even one of these three words can destroy all non-Christian belief systems. None of them can continue to withstand a persistent pressure to show relevance, justification, or validity.

Now, with all that I have said against formulas, if this one can defeat all non-Christian arguments and objections, then is it not a good formula? Should we not make it a regular part of our apologetics? The answer is that almost anything can defeat non-Christian arguments and objections, and the fact that something works does not make it a good or complete solution. Instead of aiming for the minimum, we must strive to be thorough in our refutation of non-Christian belief systems, completely destroying everything that they believe in, and then we must faithfully present the total biblical worldview.

The three words in this simple formula remind us about the questions that we should ask during a conversation or debate. Sometimes when Christians come across anti-biblical arguments, they tend to go by whether they "feel" right to them. If they can sense nothing wrong, then they do not know how to respond. This happens frequently with those believers whose minds have not been renewed by sound theology. The formula reminds them to be deliberate in examining the argument for relevance, justification, and validity.

On the other hand, the skilled biblical apologist possesses superior intellectual reflex. Since his thinking has been trained to follow deeply ingrained biblical and rational paths, his perception is quicker and clearer, and he naturally comes up with stronger arguments and countermoves. He does as if by instinct that which the beginner must deliberate upon. This is why rather than be satisfied with a decent formula, the biblical apologist must strive to make his craft into a natural reflex.

Moreover, the formula given in this chapter does not include any actual information, such as the biblical view of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, soteriology, or any other doctrine. It is possible to devise a more complex one that includes some of this information, but it is certain that the full scope and depth of biblical rationalism can never be reduced to a manageable formula. The one in this chapter is nothing more than a convenient way to remember one small aspect of biblical apologetics.

Of course, even when using this formula, the believer should usually vary his expressions. He could keep on saying, "So? So? So?" But unless he is trying to humiliate his opponent by the obvious use of a rigid line of questioning, he should demand proof of relevance in other ways. For example, he could say, "How is this relevant to the debate?" Or, "Even if this point is correct, how does it refute Christianity?" Or, with the question of validity, he can say, "I asked you to justify your assertion and you gave me an argument, but your conclusion does not really follow from your premises. Just because A and B are true does not mean that C is true."

I cannot stress enough the need to be weaned from the use of formulas and rigid tactics in apologetics. The strength and beauty of the biblical approach is unleashed only when we move on from bullet points and memorized answers to where we can maintain natural interaction with unbelievers using a biblical way of thinking. What we call biblical rationalism is just another name for the mind of Christ, and when we interact with the unbelievers from the mind of Christ, our encounters with them will have less to do with methods and techniques, but for them it will become more and more like an actual conversation with the Risen Lord. The biblical apologist is one who thinks like Christ, not just one who has memorized tactics and answers.

Students in the Real World, 3-QE

• When defending the faith against unbelievers, do they manage to give you any trouble? What sorts of people are they – students, teachers, parents? In what contexts do you converse with them about the gospel? What kinds of arguments do they use to challenge your faith?

• Why do you find some these objections difficult to answer? Is it because you either consciously or unconsciously sympathize with some of the anti-biblical assumptions behind these objections, so that you cannot see through their fallacious nature? What are these anti-biblical assumptions? Why do you sympathize with them? What can you do about this sinful sympathy for anti-biblical thinking?

• How do you perceive these unbelievers? Do you regard them as intelligent, upright, and compassionate, only that they have not yet accepted the gospel? Is this what Scripture says about unbelievers? What does it really say about them? And why is it that you have been holding to an unbiblical estimation of non-Christians? If Scripture does not teach it, who taught it to you?

• Upon examining what Scripture really says about the unbelievers, how does this information influence your perception of them? And how does this in turn influence the way that you interact with them and whether you are intimidated by them?

• What are the differences between classical apologetics and evidential apologetics? We mentioned that there are insoluble problems with both approaches, but of the two, which approach is superior? Why?

• Examine several versions of the cosmological argument. Do they employ different starting points? Why? What problems are the apologists attempting to avoid with the selection of these starting points? And what peculiarities in these premises are they trying to exploit? Are they successful?

• Obtain at least two complete presentations of pseudo-presuppositionalism. Use only the best examples from its leading and most trusted proponents. Read them, and then refute them. In the process, consider what they say about sensation, intuition, induction, and science both before and after they assert presuppositionalism as the solution. Is their so-called presuppositionalism able to answer the very arguments that they use against evidentialism? Or does it crumble under the same criticisms? Explain and demonstrate your conclusions.

• Locate either a written debate or the transcript of an oral debate between an atheist and a pseudo-presuppositionalist. Preferably, both of them should be the most highly regarded and established representatives in their fields.

You will find that the atheist loses the debate. At the same time, since his opponent is a pseudo-presuppositionalist, you will find that his defeat is not as decisive as you might prefer or expect. You might find that the believer allows his opponent to get away with many false assumptions. This is because, being a pseudo-presuppositionalist, he also shares many of these anti-biblical assumptions. In fact, in some contexts, such as when he attempts to refute biblical rationalism, he might admit that these anti-biblical assumptions even epistemologically precede his own Christian presuppositions, that he requires them to know about Christianity in the first place.

Since atheism is so easy to defeat, the Christian can always have the upper hand, but the weakness and inconsistency that you perceive come from the internal contradictions of pseudo-presuppositionalism. With this understanding, go through the debate again and devise better arguments and refutations than those offered by pseudo-presuppositionalism.

Then, turn your attention to the pseudo-presuppositionalist and refute him. If he is truly a pseudo-presuppositionalist, you should be able to refute him just as quickly and thoroughly as you do the atheist. However, the atheist is not able to perform such a refutation since he is bound by his own anti-biblical presuppositions, the same ones that the pseudo-presuppositionalist affirms. Once you abandon these false principles, you are able to refute both sides with equal ease. That said, an unbeliever who is willing to sacrifice his own claim to rationality can push toward mutual destruction when debating a pseudo-presuppositionalist who shares the same anti-biblical assumptions.

• How do you use the word "reason"? What do you mean by it? Consider how you use the word in theological and philosophical discussions. Do you find any unbiblical baggage and unnecessary assumptions in how you use it? Some people assume a full-blown theory of epistemology with the word. Do you think they are aware of this? And do you think they can justify this? What are the problems with it?

• What is biblical apologetics, biblical presuppositionalism, biblical foundationalism, or biblical rationalism? Explain its theological and biblical basis. And explain how it proceeds in practice, in an actual debate. Note whether your understanding of this approach is too mechanical, and if you are reducing it to a mere formula, to be memorized and recited. This is a common flaw that hinders the effective use of biblical apologetics.

• Initiate informal debates against at least two unbelievers. Attempt to keep your side of the debate friendly and without any rhetorical flair. The rhetorical aspect of debate is a legitimate study, but at this time we are concerned with the strictly rational side of apologetics. If you debate only two unbelievers for this exercise, it is preferable to choose one atheist, and one follower of a non-Christian religion. Then, rate your performance. If you fail to attain overwhelming victory without any strain or effort, if it requires more than 3 to 10 seconds to devise a refutation to each of an opponent's arguments, no matter how complex, or if you hesitate on even one of the objections from an unbeliever, it is highly recommended that you review our materials on biblical apologetics.

• Cite or find examples of arguments that are rooted in other approaches to apologetics, from arguments that concern history, culture, literature, and other areas. Refute them. You should find that they cannot withstand the simplest rational analysis as to their validity or even relevance. As a defense of or proof for the Christian faith, you should be able to annihilate each of these arguments in under 3 to 5 seconds.

• Consider what happens when an apologist engages an unbeliever by mainly using one of these methods. How would a debate between them proceed? Also, consider what happens when a pseudo-presuppositionalist adopts these arguments. What happens in terms of the rationality and the consistency of his system? What could happen to him in debate? Now consider how a biblical apologist looks at these arguments. Does he consider them necessary? If not, does he find any use for them? How would he use them? What effect can he produce with them? Will they backfire on him? Explain your answer.

Students in the Real World, 3-4

So we reject not only evidentialism, but also counterfeit presuppositionalism. Instead, we turn to embrace a biblical presuppositionalism – the approach that truly affirms revelation as the only foundation for rationality and knowledge. This approach can be aptly designated by several terms, each emphasizing a different aspect of it. To distinguish it from pseudo-presuppositionalism, names such as biblical foundationalism and biblical rationalism are preferred.

Christians tend to recoil from anything that comes under the label "rationalism," but here we are using the word in a literal sense and not its historical or popular sense. Some forms of rationalism claim to grasp truth by "reason" alone, and reject revelation from the beginning. This is, of course, not what we mean by rationalism in this context. Both Christians and non-Christians have invested the word with so much extra meaning that it seldom stands for mere rationality, but it is usually burdened with false assumptions about epistemology.

Thus by "reason" alone, some people include the idea of using intuition to obtain the needed premises, but they have no justification for doing this. It is also popular to identify reason with the use of sensation and science. This is why some people complain that I abandon reason when I reject science as a rational way of knowing anything about reality, although I do so precisely because science fails to stand up under the simplest logical analysis. It is because Christians have also accepted this loaded concept of reason that they avoid putting too much emphasis on it, for fear that they would exalt man's powers over divine revelation. However, this concern is unnecessary once we unload the extra baggage that has been attached to reason.

Now, the first definition in Merriam-Webster for "rationalism" reads, "reliance on reason as the basis for establishment of religious truth." And its second definition for "reason" says, "the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways." There is nothing in either of these definitions that requires us to reject revelation from the start.

Then, since God's mind is perfectly rational, and since his revelation is perfectly rational, this means anything that contradicts divine revelation is irrational. From this perspective, there is nothing wrong with outright identifying revelation with reason – that is, revelation is reason with content. In fact, instead of adopting one of the traditional positions – faith against reason, faith and reason, faith above reason, and so on – we take the biblical position that faith is reason. To avoid confusion, "reason" can refer to logically valid thinking without referring to content, and "Reason" can refer to reason with content, that is, the self-disclosure of the mind of God, or Christ the Logos.

The confusion over the word "reason" partly comes from the fact that reason or logic itself is without content. By itself, logic cannot proceed anywhere or reach any conclusion, but one must feed it with premises to begin the thinking process. And this in turn requires an epistemology, a way of knowing these premises. Perhaps because of this, people have come to identify their favored epistemological principle with reason itself. However, if the epistemology is itself faulty – that is, if it supplies false premises, or has no way of justifying its premises – then logic will only lead the thinker from one error to another.

On the one hand, biblical rationalism places a greater emphasis on reason than any other system of thought. And on the other hand, its sole reliance on Scripture as its source for true premises means that no stronger emphasis on revelation is possible. Beginning from God's infallible revelation, it proceeds to deduce one's entire belief system, to defend this belief system, and to refute all non-Christian religions and philosophies. It refuses to rely on intuition and sensation in its epistemology, because they cannot yield true premises needed for rational thought. And it refuses to accept conclusions reached by inductive and scientific reasoning, because these are logically invalid methods of processing information.

Since biblical rationalism merely processes and applies divine revelation, it remains simple and flexible, in that it is at the same time a system of theology, philosophy, and apologetics. Unlike pseudo-presuppositionalism, because it practices a true reliance on divine revelation, and revelation is infallible, biblical rationalism itself is true, coherent, and invincible in intellectual conflicts. And because it pays attention to its own basic principles and those of others, it deals a death blow to the unbeliever's system of thought in every argument it advances and every answer it supplies. At every turn, it strikes hard at the foundation of the non-Christian's thinking. Again and again, it exposes his intellectual futility and moral depravity. And at any point in the conversation, it is able to present the light of God's revelation through Jesus Christ.

The non-Christian appeals to his own way of knowing, claiming that he has information that gives him a way out. Instead of saying that the unbeliever merely cannot account for this information, or that although his way of knowing might be reliable, the information is somehow wrong, biblical apologetics destroys all of this nonsense and destroys all that he depends on, all at the same time, leaving him without help and without excuse, and holding out the gospel of Jesus Christ as his only hope.

Moreover, although it is always appropriate to prepare as much as possible, because its sole dependence is on revelation and rationality, the biblical apologist can enter into any debate against any person fully assured of his own victory, even without first knowing what kind of person he is debating, or what kind of arguments and objections will be brought up.

That said, because the biblical apologist understands the true nature of false epistemology and invalid reasoning, he can freely select from the whole range of classical and evidential arguments in the course of debate. He does not rely on them to prove his own case, but only to show that the unbeliever is defeated even if his non-biblical principles are allowed. In other words, he shows that the unbeliever cannot wield even his own weapons, although these weapons are powerless in the first place. And since the biblical apologist makes it clear that he employs these classical and evidential arguments to perform a negative function, they can never backfire against him.