THE UNIVERSAL CHARGE FOR CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

During his pastoral tenure at the church in Ephesus, Timothy was confronted with a geographical environment that featured many opponents of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.[1] Amidst the surrounding area of the Ephesian church plant, was a cesspool of religious heresies being postulated by those who had once identified with the visible people of God.[2] These acts of religion stood in stark contrast to the doctrine that the Apostle Paul had instructed Timothy to institute within the parameters of the church in Ephesus (2 Tim. 1:13-14). As such, Timothy needed to act swiftly to rectify this alarming situation that was brewing in the midst of his congregation. Given Timothy’s susceptibility to fear and timidity during circumstances of tribulation (2 Tim. 1:7), the Apostle Paul was strategic in providing him with a plethora of theological and practical exhortations geared towards aiding his “true child in the faith” (1 Tim. 1:1-2).

For Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, there were few priorities of greater importance than to see his young protégé modeling faithfulness to shepherding the flock that God had entrusted unto him. The legacy of Paul’s intentionality with Timothy can be seen throughout the corpus of the New Testament epistles that were specifically addressed to him. Moreover, Christians have continued to profit greatly from reflecting upon these sacred writings that have been preserved within the canon of sacred Scripture for two millennia (2 Tim. 3:15). Perhaps the most pressing theological and practical admonition conveyed from the Apostle Paul to Timothy, in an effort to direct his young apprentice in the most Christlike manner for dealing with any apparent opposition to the Gospel of grace, is transcribed in 2 Timothy 2:24-26.

The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will (NASB).

In this powerful excerpt from the Apostle Paul’s final words to be recorded in the New Testament, Timothy is being charged to “correct those who are in opposition [to the doctrine espoused within Christian orthodoxy]” so that “God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth.” For those who have been entrusted with the weighty task of serving within Christian leadership, the apostolic expectation is to correct those who are in error so that they may come to embrace sound doctrine. With that being said, this commission is not exclusively reserved for those who are involved in vocational ministry. The content of Paul’s instruction to Timothy is nearly identical to the exhortation that Peter offers to his first-century readers, the majority of which were not clergy in their local churches.

In 1 Peter 3:14-15, all Christians are directed to earnestly contend for the truth of the Christian faith, even if it means facing animosity, hostility, oppression, and persecution for doing so. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Peter implores Believers in the following way.

But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:14-15, NASB).

The common theme of New Testament apostolic instruction is for Christians to boldly and uncompromisingly, yet gently, provide a defense for their faith when situations are sovereignly appointed by God to do so.[3] Followers of the Lord Jesus Christ have a biblical directive to understand what they believe and thereafter, be able to clearly articulate why they believe what they believe in a manner that is humble, thoughtful, reasonable, and cogent.[4] This is the expectation to which all Believers are to be held accountable by the Word of God, and at the Bema Seat Judgment, it is certain that they will have to give an account to their Lord as to how faithful or faithless they were to obeying this biblical mandate (2 Cor. 5:10). Indeed, the task of defending the Christian faith and articulating the reasons for why one has embraced Christianity in the first place is an integral responsibility that followers of Christ are to embrace in this life (Col. 4:6). May the body of Christ be found faithful to this crucial endeavor until the Lord returns to judge the living and the dead (Rev. 20:11-15). Soli Deo Gloria!

THE CONTEMPORARY WORLDVIEW CHALLENGE OF POST-MODERNISM

In this fallen, unregenerate world, competing truth claims infinitely abound (2 Cor. 4:4). Seemingly, every person with a social media account attempts to provide their sphere of influence with a unique perspective on what constitutes truth in reality. Although written nearly a decade ago, Dr. Michael Kruger’s assessment on the philosophical climate of the Western world remains vividly accurate in the present day.

Every day, people are bombarded with declarations that something is true and that something else is false. We are told what to believe and what not to believe. We are asked to behave one way but not another way… How do we sift through these claims? How do people know what to think about relationships, morality, God, the origins of the universe, and many other important questions? To answer such questions, people need some set of norms, standard, or criteria to which they can appeal. In other words, we need an ultimate authority.[5]

In 2020, the idea of having an ultimate authority may seem impossible at best or undesirable at worst. By ultimate authority, it is meant “the self-authenticating starting point of [interpreting reality], that directly informs one’s unquestioned assumptions and primitive commitments [about understanding the world around them].”[6] An ultimate authority for understanding reality, by its very definition, presupposes that reality can even be objectively known. The very idea of objectivity and authority also presupposes a pre-modern conception of the nature of truth. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy helpfully identifies the pre-modern consensus on how truth used to be perceived in reality and provides insightful clarification as to how this perspective differs from the prevailing understandings that are posited today.

Perhaps the most important of the neo-classical theories for the contemporary literature is the correspondence theory. Ideas that sound strikingly like a correspondence theory are no doubt very old. They might well be found in Aristotle or Aquinas. When we turn to the late 19th and early 20th centuries where we pick up the story of the neo-classical theories of truth, it is clear that ideas about correspondence were central to the discussions of the time… The basic idea of the correspondence theory is that what we believe or say is true [so long as] it corresponds to the way things actually are – to the facts. This idea can be seen in various forms throughout the history of philosophy…   The correspondence theory of truth is at its core an ontological thesis: a belief is true if there exists an appropriate entity – a fact – to which it corresponds. If there is no such entity, the belief is false.[7]

A comparison between the pre-modern apprehension of truth stands in strong opposition to the predominant opinions found when surveying modern and post-modern thinkers on this topic. Historians have observed that the pre-modern era of philosophy was in effect until the advent of the seventeenth century.[8] It was the philosophical musings of Rene Descartes (1596-1650) that introduced a seismic shift in the manner by which intellectuals approached making sense of the created order.[9] For perhaps the first time in the history of philosophical inquiry, Descartes deferred to no intellectual authority other than the natural light of reason.[10] The consequences: a change of philosophical perspective so great, that the [pre-modern perspective] fell into lasting disrepute.[11]

With the rise of intellectual autonomy, the pre-modern conception of truth gave way to modernism for the next three centuries. Modernism fueled the desire for man to doubt everything that culture, religion, science and philosophy had previously taken for granted in generations past.[12] Although there was a plethora of helpful scientific and technological advancements made over the duration of the modern era, ironically, man’s propensity to affirm the prevalence of objective truth in reality eventually began to experience a sharp decline.[13] In time, man’s habit to doubt whether or not something was true morphed into doubting whether or not truth even existed at all. This aforementioned manner of thinking reached such a climax in the middle of the twentieth century, that historians have since come to conclude that the modern era of philosophy has come to a definitive cessation.[14]

As previously alluded to, the label that categorizes how the majority of Western civilians reflect upon the nature and existence of truth is post-modernism. In their formative work, The Modern Theologians Reader, editors David Ford, Mike Higton and Simeon Zahl provide a robust assessment of post-modern thinking.

Post-modernism emphasizes the difficulties of representation and signification, as well as underscores diversity, openness to [the philosophical concept of] the Other, [the notion that ideas about reality should be uninhibited by society in terms of what is practical and what is possible], and criticizes totalizing metanarratives.[15]

In summation, post-modernism values personal emotions and subjective preferences over genuinely seeking to uncover the objective structure of reality itself. Post-modernism’s aversion to metanarratives necessitates that absolute truth cannot exist in reality.[16] For the post-modernist, there is not a central, overarching purpose to reality, nor are there unchanging, universal truths in reality.[17] Ultimately, what matters for the post-modernist is not uncovering ultimate truth in the universe, but rather, determining what is true for the individual.[18] This line of reasoning would have been utterly untenable to subscribe to in any other period of human history. Nevertheless, post-modern ideologies dominate the contemporary Western milieu, and when examined from the perspective of Christian orthodoxy, post-modernism poses one of the most significant challenges to defending the validity of the faith. After all, according to the post-modernist, “what gives anybody the right to say that what they believe is objectively true, and what others believe is objectively false?”

In a world dominated by philosophical ambiguity, Christians are still called to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:18-20) and in the process of doing so, provide a reason for why they believe what they believe from God’s Word (2 Tim. 2:24-26; 1 Pet. 3:14-15). Thankfully, the Bible is not only absolutely sufficient for equipping the body of Christ with a means of defending their faith (2 Tim. 3:16-17), but also provides a powerful antidote to confronting and refuting post-modernism. Indeed, the presuppositional method of apologetics offers Christians with a biblically derived and philosophically consistent approach to dismantling the most vehement challenges of post-modernism.

PRESUPPOSITIONALISM IS THE BIBLICAL ANTIDOTE TO POSTMODERNISM

From the outset of apologetics, Christians must first recognize that post-modernism is completely antithetical to their faith. There is a fundamental antithesis that exists between biblical Christianity and all variations of post-modern philosophy. The easiest illustration of this antithesis can be seen when observing the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ in John 14:6. In that passage, Jesus unequivocally states that “[He is] the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through [Him].” This is an unquestionable claim of exclusivity by Christ, and it demonstrates that from the perspective of His true followers, any philosophy that contradicts this proposition is to be regarded as false. In other words, Christianity demands its followers to look at every adherent to other religions and philosophies of life and say, “your system of belief is inaccurate.”

For the post-modernist, the claims of Christianity are incongruent with its desire for people to merely accept “what is true for them.” Post-modernism and Christianity are incompatible with one another, and both of these respective systems are competing interpretations of reality. As such, the task of the Christian apologist is to graciously demonstrate to post-modern thinkers at least these two monumental propositions: 1) the post-modern system of philosophy is self-defeating by virtue of its objective statements that claim for there to be nothing objective (true) in reality itself and 2) that apart from embracing the Christian worldview and interpreting reality from a biblical framework, one will be unable to prove that anything, in reality, is true, nor be able to account for the existence of any of the preconditions of intelligible experience within reality. The remainder of this paper will briefly seek to address both of the antecedently referenced assertions.

The first assertion is easy to clarify and will not require extensive treatment. To claim that there is nothing objectively true in reality is, in itself, an attempt to make an objectively true claim about the nature of reality. It is not difficult to see the chief problem with post-modernism when viewed within the parameters of this faulty logic. By virtue of the impossibility to talk about anything in the world without making absolute, objective statements, the post-modernist cannot consistently live within their own expressed worldview. On the one hand, the post-modernist wants to insist that truth is merely in the eye of the beholder; that the only principle that matters is what one deems to be true for themselves.

Nevertheless, when the post-modernist states that the only thing that matters is what is true for somebody (individually speaking), they are thereby making a universal statement of truth that is necessarily binding upon all people. In light of this unavoidable inconsistency in reasoning, Christians need to show post-modernists that their framework for understanding the nature of reality is significantly wanting. It is in doing so that the Christian can begin to effectively transition the adherent to post-modern philosophy into a conversation about how their faith offers a more existentially compelling and logically consistent worldview. In a previous citation, Dr. Michael Kruger expressed the importance of having an ultimate authority for being able to objectively make sense of reality. As Christians, the ultimate authority for all matters pertaining to faith and practice is the Holy Bible (2 Tim. 3:16-17). It is through the Bible that Christians are to understand the world as their Creator would have them to do so, and ultimately, it is in accordance with the biblical witness that Christians are to concretize their worldview. A worldview is “’the systematic collection and arrangement of the most foundational beliefs and assumptions about the universe one inhabits.”[19] It has been rightfully said that worldviews are like cerebellums: everyone has one and we can’t live without them, but not everyone knows that they have one.[20] While critical reflections on worldviews are not popular in 2020, they are of extreme value towards helping people identify their ultimate authority for interpreting reality.

Fundamentally, one’s ultimate authority for understanding reality is the very foundation upon which their overarching worldview has been constructed. It is at this point where Christians can make significant headway with the post-modernist. In view of the second key assertion that was made above, one will be unable to prove that anything, in reality, is true, nor be able to account for the existence of any of the preconditions of intelligible experience within reality if they do not embrace for themselves the Christian worldview. On what basis can this provocative statement be made? It is on the basis of the impossibility to the contrary.[21] At the outset of defending the faith, the Christian must make it clear to the post-modernist that all of humanity knows within themselves, as a creature having been created in the Imago Dei, that there is a supreme Creator that served as the eternal antecedent cause to bring forth all that resides in reality (Rom. 1:18-32). To demonstrate how this is the case, the Christian must point out how at every point in a human being’s life, they are showcasing how they presuppose the existence of the triune God of the Bible.[22] That is to say, they live in such a way that illustrates how they presuppose some of the most foundational tenets of the Christian worldview to be true, even though they do not profess with their lips to believe it. Christians and non-Christians alike presuppose, on a daily basis, the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the reliability of human sensory experience and moral absolutes.

The Bible provides a universal, unchanging, and objective basis for the existence of the laws of logic (Col. 2:3; 2 Tim. 2:13). The Bible teaches that God upholds and sustains all things in His created order by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3), thereby enabling His creatures to trust that nature will remain uniform. Moreover, the Noahic Covenant described in Scripture offers mankind an unbreakable promise that God will sustain His creation until the Last Day (Gen. 9:1-17). As stated above, the Bible describes the creation of humanity in the image of a God who is all-knowing and all-powerful (Prov. 20:12). Scripture also states that all of mankind will someday be held accountable for the deeds they do in their bodies (1 Cor. 3:12-15). As such, the Christian worldview provides the basis for trusting in the reliability of human sensory experience. Lastly, the Bible provides God’s standard for morality in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:1-17) and teaches that the moral law of God has been written on the heart of every human being (Rom. 2:14-16). The reason why people feel guilty for doing something they instinctively know to be wrong (such as murder, rape, theft, or adultery) is because as God’s image-bearers, they have been wired with a sense of what is objectively right and what is objectively wrong.

Each of the biblical teachings that are described above indicates that it is fundamentally impossible for the Christian worldview to be false. If it were false, there would be no ability for anybody to have an objective philosophical basis for knowing anything to be true in reality nor would there be any way of understanding why anything is true in the first place. When conversing with the post-modernist, it is easy to at least demonstrate to them how this is the case logically. The Christian should show them how they are assuming the existence of the laws of logic when they engage in the act of arguing about whether or not Christianity is true. The Christian should illustrate how the post-modernist assumed that the law of gravity would continue to operate as normal from the moment that they got out of bed in the morning. The Christian should highlight how the post-modernist presupposes the universality of God’s moral law when they feel appalled by the injustices and evil that exists in this fallen world. Each of these examples, among many others that could be cited, indicates to the post-modernist that because they live in God’s world and because they have been created in God’s image, they must play by His rules to function in reality.

Like all people, the post-modernist must live in such a way that in many respects, proves that they really do believe in objective truth in reality. In fact, many dimensions of their lifestyles poignantly indicate that they even believe in their heart of hearts that the triune God of Christianity is real. Bearing this in mind, when Christians go about this approach in apologetical conversations with the post-modernist, it is essential for them to always remember one critical reality. Even upon being directly and clearly confronted with these compelling philosophical arguments, ultimately, only the Holy Spirit will enable them to submit themselves to these truths (1 Cor. 3:6-7). Only God can grant a sinner with the ability to repent of their sins and come to saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8-9). Nevertheless, the Christian has a duty to graciously point out the fallaciousness behind the reasoning of the post-modernist in hopes that they might come to a saving knowledge of the truth of Christianity (2 Pet. 1:3). In the years to come, may God continue to raise up a multitude of Christians to boldly and charitably converse with those who have been held captive to the secular ideologies of this age, so that those yet unredeemed might come to taste and see that the Lord is good. Indeed, how blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him (Ps. 34:8)!

[1]           John MacArthur, ed., The MacArthur Study Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), Page 1825.

[2]           Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990), Page 167.

[3]           Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter: An Introduction and Commentary (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2009), Page 161.

[4]           Jason Lisle, The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2017), Page 12.

[5]           Michael Kruger, “Scripture Alone,” November 1, 2012, https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/scripture-alone/.

[6]           Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Foundation, 2000), Pages 68-69.

[7]           Michael Glanzberg, “Truth,” August 16, 2018, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/#CorThe.

[8]           Heath White, Postmodernism 101: A First Course for the Curious Christian (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2007), Page 13.

[9]           T.Z. Lavine, From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1989), Page 92.

[10]         Roger Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy: From Descartes to Wittgenstein (London: Routledge, 1995), Page 27.

[11]         Scruton, Page 27.

[12]         Cornelius Van Til, “The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought,” accessed September 20, 2020, https://hopecollege.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/12/The-Reformed-Pastor-and-Modern-Thought.pdf.

[13]         Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View (New York, NY: Ballantine, 1993), Page 395.

[14]         Pauline Vaillan Rosenau and Harry C. Bredemeier, “Modern and Postmodern Conceptions of Social Order,” Social Research 60, no. 2 (Summer 1993): 337-62, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=a9h&AN=9308316413&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

[15]         David Ford, Mike Higton, and Simeon Zahl, The Modern Theologians Reader (Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), Page 192.

[16]         Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Revelation, Scripture and God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2007), Page 130.

[17]         Brian Duignan, “Postmodernism,” September 4, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy.

[18]         George R. Knight, Philosophy & Education: An Introduction in Christian Perspective (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2006), Pages 99-100.

[19]         James Anderson, What’s Your Worldview? An Interactive Approach to Life’s Big Questions (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2014), Page 12.

[20]         Anderson, Page 12.

[21]         Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008), Page 381.

[22]         Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2003), Page 141.