Introduction and Epistemology
1. Why Study Apologetics?
1.1. The Task of Apologetics
1.1.1. The Apologists Task: Proof and Persuasion
1 Peter 3:14-16 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
That preparation requires a deep attention to God and an awareness of the spirit of the age in which we live. This is one way in which we regard Christ the Lord as holy.
1.1.2. Apologetics – from Greek Apologia meaning a reasoned statement or verbal defense.
1.1.3. This process has its roots in the early Church as we responded to attacks by pagans. We were accused of cannibalism (drinking blood and eating flesh) and we were accused of being atheists because we refused to worship the Roman gods.
1.2. The Scope of the Class
1.2.1. We will look at foundational rules for thinking and a proof of God. More work is required as we move to the God of the Bible. We’ll really only get as far as Aristotle did but it is a place that atheists fear to go and nothing much has changed since Aristotle.
1.2.2. This is not just proof but it is also persuasive Calvin said, “If godly men take these things to heart, they will be abundantly equipped to restrain the barking of ungodly men; for this is proof too clear to be open to any subtle objections.”
1.2.3. In J. Edwards’ way of thinking, reason proves the existence of God and anticipates a revelation (i.e., Scripture).
1.2.4. But we are not working against ignorance but biased enmity (so a move of the Holy Spirit isn’t just helpful but essential).
1.3. Apologetics and Saving Faith
1.3.1. Apologetics and the Three Levels of Faith
This is important in both pre- and post-evangelism.
Notitia or notei – Knowledge of the facts; Jack Friday position, “Just the Facts”
Assensus – A realization that the facts are true; Devils know this and tremble
Fiducia – Personal trust, reliance, and love of Christ that flows from new heart
1.3.2. Faith is not a Blind Leap – God has created a world that testifies of Him and provided sufficient evidence to establish the validity of Scripture. The phrase “a leap of faith” is a bad expression that grew from a misconception of Søren Kierkegaard.
2. Introduction to the 4 Essential Principles of Knowing
2.1. Epistemology – How human knowledge is obtained. We have some very basic tools. Sproul had his class study the original works of the more noted atheists and examine the nature of their objections to the classical proofs of God. One or more of the following 4 principles were rejected by atheists in their arguments and are fundamental to rational thought and assumed in Scripture.
3. The Law of Noncontradiction – Something can not be “A” and “non-A” at the same time and in the same relationship. Favored by those who love a moral relativism with a convenient personal opinion control over right and wrong. If truth is relative then the truth of God in scripture is not true but is rather a lie since it teaches that there is an absolute truth. You can’t have it both ways unless you simply reject rational thought and if you wish to be irrational to avoid God then so be it. If you reject this law then live according to it. You won’t because you can’t.
3.1. Noncontradiction vs. Existential Relativism – We do have a particular problem today because existentialism is common in the church. Kierkegaard was mentioned earlier and others such as Bultmann have actually promoted a relativistic belief system and stress a fideism. This isn’t really an original attack on the Church but is an old attack. Tertullian of Carthage ran a similar argument in 200AD.
3.2. Is Contradiction a “Hallmark of Faith”? – Emil Brunner (1889 to 1966) said it was. That you needed to embrace both sides of a contradiction to be spiritual. Consequently, original sin couldn’t be attributed to Eve since she was just embracing both sides of a contradiction. You would need to argue that she did the spiritual thing. This boils down to “absurd” and undermines our understanding of Scripture.
3.3. Contradiction, Paradox, and Mystery – Not synonyms
3.3.1. Contradiction vs. Paradox – The traditional formulation of our understanding of the Trinity; God is one in essence but three in person. This is not a contradiction but this is a paradox to our finite minds contemplating an infinite God. If someone was sloppy in presenting the Trinity then it might even be presented as a contradiction. I remember a teacher about 30 years ago who was teaching on some difficult subject said that, “In our infinite God these parallel lines can meet.” No, parallel lines don’t ever meet. They are parallel. We don’t affirm contradictions and God doesn’t ask us to affirm contradictions. His communication with us is dependant on rational thinking and being able to distinguish among contradictions. For example; “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”ESV (Is 1:18-20). However, God loves paradox. Jesus said that if we wanted to find our life we should lose it for His sake. That is a paradox. We don’t lose and find our lives in the same way at the same time.
3.3.2. Contradiction, Paradox, and Antinomy – Contradiction is easily seen as different from paradox. In classical philosophy antinomy was the same as paradox but current usage muddles the words. Why even mention antinomy? It means against the law with “the law” being the law of noncontradiction and J.I. Packer (who I hope you all read sometime because he is very good) uses antinomy to mean paradox. He has been asked about that and yes he means paradox and not contradiction.
3.3.3. Mystery – is what is left in the middle of truth when we have specified what God has been pleased to reveal. For example, when the Council of Chalcedon in 451 affirmed that Jesus was truly God and truly man with 2 complete natures not confused, mixed, separated, or divided. However, the Church didn’t specify exactly how He is constituted. It is left a mystery within the scriptural bounds given. Indicates a lack of knowledge or incomplete understanding.
3.3.4. Mystery vs. Contradiction – While a mystery is not currently understood a contradiction can’t be understood because it is inherently contradictory. Some people in the Church say that God sense God is a higher order of being that He can reconcile contradictions in His mind that we can’t. Well if that were the case then all Scripture would be suspect and Christ could simultaneously be Christ and antichrist. Nope. Contradictions are contradictions and God calls us to reason with Him and not to affirm nonsense.
4. The Law of Causality – assumed since Adam. Every effect has a cause. True by definition so why attack that? You would attack it if you had a vested interest in denying the existence of God. Down through the history of western thought this has formed a root argument for the existence of God.
4.1. Causality Under Attack – Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) says in his book, “Why I am not a Christian” that when he was 17 years old he read material by John Stuart Mill who said that, “if everything must have a cause then God must have a cause”. At this point Russell rejected any belief in God and persisted in his unbelief until his death at which point he found his position to be in error. Mill misstated the law of causality. It isn’t “everything” but “every effect”. God is not an effect. If He were he wouldn’t be God. He is eternal and self existent. Even Aristotle got this right.
4.2. Causality: True by Definition – since an effect is something produced by a cause and a cause is something that produces an effect.
4.2.1. No Cause? Or No Ability to Know the Cause? David Hume argued that we don’t really perceive causality at work. He said that all we see are actions that occur together. Just because the cue ball hits the object ball doesn’t mean that the cue ball actually is the “cause” of the object ball moving. Well what kind of nut would argue about that? Well philosopher nuts would argue. Hume’s point was we don’t know exhaustively cause and effect mechanisms. He said effects may be “customary” or “contiguous” but not really cause and effect. Hume made a point in that we can have difficulty with cause and effect but he didn’t remove cause and effect. He simply made it clear that we have problems perceiving cause and effect. He didn’t prove there wasn’t one. You think you scratch your head over this. Scientists are always talking about mechanisms and base everything on cause and effect. Not only are they generally unaware of Hume they simply think of his point as generally useless. Hume, for a scientist, is simply stating that there are mysteries with regard to cause and effect. There is more truth to find out and our current explanation is provisional and subject to revision. Hume would say that we don’t know what caused an event but he would not say nothing caused an event. Those who fear the existence of God argue that Hume destroyed cause and effect because it the law of cause and effect drives them to acknowledge the existence of God. No one really lives in denial of cause and effect since it would necessarily be fatal in short order. If you don’t believe in cause and effect then live that way. You won’t because you can’t.
5. The Basic Reliability of our Senses
5.1. Immanuel Kant – Hume showed that our senses have limits and can’t penetrate to possible invisible forces at the root of cause and effect. That is more of a given that something that brings science and reason crashing down. We know that our senses are limited. Some more limited than others since my eyes are gradually getting worse. However, the basic reliability of my senses is not something I negotiate as a scientist or as a Christian. Scripture often makes reference to “eyewitness” testimony (i.e., 2 Peter 1:16-18 or 1 John 1:1-3). Once again, a person may object philosophically to the basic reliability of sense perception but they don’t live that way because no rational person can live that way. Immanuel Kant worked his entire life to overcome the problems raised by Hume. Kant realized that science and philosophy were dead in the water if Hume’s criticisms were left unanswered. God has even given us ways to understand and enhance our senses. What we have learned makes us more confident of our sense and not less confident. Microscopes and telescopes increase our abilities. I have a sensor at work that “sees” in wavelengths that I can’t see. We know how our ears, eyes, nose, and touch work. We know what their limits are and how to enhance them. We never would have worked in that way if we didn’t have a fundamental confidence in sense perception. If you believe your senses are not reliable then live that way. You won’t because you can’t.
6. The Analogical Value of Language with Regard to God – This may seem like an odd topic but it has been at the root of errors on both ends of the theological spectrum. The argument is about whether language is sufficient for saying anything meaningful about God.
6.1. I’d like to frame the discussion with the contrast of God’s transcendence and Him immanence.
6.1.1. Immanence – God is with us in the moment. Right now, right here. People fell off in the shallow end here when they entered into “God-talk controversy” and “Theo-thanatology” in the 1930s and the “death of God” movement in the 1960s. The logical positivist movement stated that only those things that could be proved empirically were real. Except for that. That was a postulate. Then since there was no empirical proof of God (sense no one had seen him) they said that statements about God were either nonsensical or emotive. They simply reflected how you felt. God is so immanent that He has simply ceased to exist except in your mind and in fact stops being immanent at all. If you feel there is a god then good for you but if I don’t then good for me and we are both right (yes, I know, see the law of noncontradiction). So if I say that there is a God then I’m not (in the view of this school of philosophy) saying anything meaningful. Some folks moved to pantheism with God being everything and nothing in particular. So these folks say that language is not really useful with respect to talking about God since it is at best describing how you feel. However, as an Old School Christian I’m claiming that God exists apart from me and in fact, apart from this universe. That He is eternal and self existent. My belief or their unbelief is not relevant when it comes to God’s existence. He isn’t Tinker Bell conjured up by my belief. I exist at His pleasure. In Him I live and move and have my being.
6.1.2. Transcendence – This is the other end of the spectrum. Focusing on God’s transcendence, folks have noted how outside our experience God is. He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent; who is like God knowing the end from the beginning. You can not over state the perfections of God but Karl Barth managed to error in this direction. He hated reason and natural theology so much popularized the idea that God is “wholly other”. In this view God is so separate that He is dissociated from it and we can gain no real knowledge of Him whatsoever because He is too pure, too separate, too wholly other for language. Of course this sounds pious but in reality you would need to ignore God’s speaking to us in scripture. If this were true then we would not be able to say anything about God or to assert that anything in particular was true or false about God. So language would be useless.
6.1.3. Our Analogical Knowledge of God – God gave us a gift in Thomas Aquinas during the thirteenth century. He worked on some of these problems and helped explain the issues. It is too bad that Barth didn’t listen to him. Aquinas discussed the “analogy of being” in that we share a relationship with God since we are made in His image. We use analogy to relate to the infinite God. We know about power so we can talk about omnipotence. We know about knowing so we can talk about omniscience. We know about being in a place so we can talk about omnipresence. In fact, to meditate on these things is a real blessing as we worship God. Aquinas was defending the faith against Muslim relativists and yet it helps us today as he establishes that a word may be used in an analogical way. As I say my dog is a good dog, my children are good children, my boss is a good boss, and God is good. That the descriptions are analogical in the sense that they communicate different information depending on what I’m talking about but they still communicate meaning. We can communicate meaningful information about God in this way. We are not handicapped by language either as a result of God being a figment of my imagination or as a result of God being wholly other.
No comments:
Post a Comment