Mapping Apologetics

Comparing Contemporary Approaches

Brian K. Morley

• Publisher: IVP Academic
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9780830897049
• Topic: Théologie et religion
• Subtopic: Théologie chrétienne

Everyone believes something. But how and why do people believe? What counts as evidence? How much can be assumed or believed by faith alone?When it comes to religious faith, the questions become at once more difficult and more important. Over the centuries, Christians have offered different approaches to explaining or defending the Christian faith, a discipline known as apologetics. But it has not always been clear how different apologetic methods work, or what each approach has to offer.In this comprehensive survey, Brian Morley provides an overview of Christian apologetic approaches and how they differ. He explores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of key figures and major schools of thought, from the presuppositionalism of Cornelius Van Til to the evidentialism of Gary Habermas. Moving beyond theory, Morley also covers apologetic application, demonstrating how each view works out in practical terms.This guide covers the complexities of apologetics in a way that is accessible to the nonspecialist. Even-handed and respectful of each apologist and their contribution, this book provides the reader with a formidable array of defenses for the faith.

Part One

Foundational Issues

– 1 –

Apologetics in the Bible

Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics, and that we look in vain for any attempt to prove the existence of God. It simply assumes the existence of God, and we should do the same. But this view overlooks the fact that the Bible was written mostly for the benefit of believers, not for unbelievers. And looking for answers to atheists—of which there were very few in Israel and not that many in the classical world—overlooks the way believers dealt with the challenges of the day. The main question in ancient times, reflected in the Old Testament, was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and served. A major issue in the New Testament was, who is the person of Christ?

Old Testament

Much more work needs to be done on the subject of apologetics in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. We can, however, identify some general themes.

God’s power to act is given throughout the Old Testament as a reason to believe and trust in him. He supports those who obey, honor and trust him, confidently expecting him to act (e.g., Is 49:23). He also provides for them, guides and protects them and even cares for their descendants (Deut 28:1-14). Those who oppose him he will oppose in a myriad of ways (e.g., 1 Sam 2:30; Ps 18:26). There are anomalies, such as Job, but in general there is a sharp contrast between the well-being of those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him. Though the people might not have thought of it primarily as a source of confirmation, there is some explanatory power, and thus confirmation, in the correlation between personal and national faithfulness to Yahweh and well-being in the past and present and as a predictor of the future; and conversely for correlation between lack of faithfulness with trouble in the past, present and future.

God’s actions had, understandably, more apologetic impact on the ancient peoples who witnessed them and, in the case of Israel, passed down the memories of them. For example, many of those who saw Israel defeat powerful enemies became convinced of Yahweh’s reality (Josh 2:9-11). The persuasiveness of an argument from events to the God behind them is felt less today since it depends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record. Today, owing to several centuries of attacks on the historical credibility of the Bible, many unbelievers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that doubt is partly the subject of this book).

Isaiah exemplifies an important type of Old Testament apologetic reasoning. To make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding, with evidence and witnesses, challenging opponents,

“Present your case,” the LORD says.

“Bring forward your strong arguments.” (Is 41:21; cf. Is 43:26; 45:21)

The proceedings contrast Yahweh, the true God, with idols, which are made by very human craftsmen from ordinary materials (Is 40:18-20; 41:6-7; 44:9-20). Whereas idols cannot save, Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 41:11-12), sustain life (Is 41:17-18) and fructify the land (41:19). He does it in order

that they may see and recognize,

And consider and gain insight as well,

That the hand of the LORD has done this,

And the Holy One of Israel has created it. (Is 41:20)

Idols are mere “wind and emptiness” (Is 41:29) that can neither answer nor deliver (Is 46:7; 45:20)—in fact the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 46:2).

In similar reasoning, the psalmist says that idols are merely “the work of man’s hands.” They cannot speak, see, hear, smell, feel or move. Those who make and trust them “will become like them” (Ps 115:4-8; cf. Ps 135:15-18). Habakkuk also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 2:18). Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God, not idols, can give rain (essential to life in a desert; Jer 14:22)—a point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in his showdown with the false prophets and their idols (1 Kings 17–18).

This type of reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples. When the Assyrians go against Israel, the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is futile to trust that Yahweh will deliver them. No other gods have delivered their people from Assyria, and Yahweh will be no different. Hezekiah prays that God will show he is superior to the idols, and God responds by giving them victory (Is 37). When the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer defeat, they suppose it is because Yahweh is a God of the hills. If they fight on the plains, they reason, their own gods will be stronger and will defeat Israel. Yahweh makes sure the Syrians are defeated on the plain as well, to show he is Lord over all (1 Kings 20:23, 28).

Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking for them. Even Israel, at times, had prophets representing other gods, as well as prophets who spoke falsely in the name of the Lord. The genuine prophets of the true God were at times validated by performing miracles. The woman of Zarephath understands this when Elijah raises her son. She says, “Now I know that you are a man of God and that the word of the LORD in your mouth is truth” (1 Kings 17:24). One of the most dramatic miracles in the Old Testament is Elijah’s showdown with the false prophets on Mt. Carmel, when their god cannot cause their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up, whereas Elijah’s God can. “When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, ‘The LORD, He is God; the LORD, He is God’” (1 Kings 18:39). Additionally, one of the most memorable events in Israel’s history, one that defines them as a nation, is the miracle of the exodus. The clear implication, reiterated throughout the Old Testament, is that they could have come forth only if their God was real.

In the Old Testament, the ability to foretell the future is also a clear mark of the true God himself. Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the future (Is 41:23), “declaring the end from the beginning” (Is 46:10). God explicitly identifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks for him and one who does not: “‘How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him” (Deut 18:21-22).

The prophetic tradition that was validated formed a cohesive whole in that each contribution constructed a harmonious message. In many cases they knew their contemporaries, and even validated their message (e.g., Elijah’s mantle passed to Elisha, 2 Kings 2:13).

New Testament

The New Testament reflects important apologetic themes found in the Old. For example, Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he represents the true God. He came as the fulfillment of the predictions.

Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks for the living God. He goes so far as to say, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father” (Jn 10:37-38). Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance of Christ’s miracles, saying, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (Jn 3:2). John closes his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some of Jesus’ miracles in order that people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 20:30-31).

Acts also records numerous miraculous events performed by or on behalf of the apostles (e.g., Acts 3:7; 14:10). Miracles as divine credentials will be used again by the two witnesses in Revelation 11:5-6.

It is common to hear—even from pulpits—that miracles never change the mind of anyone; they merely confirm the faith of believers and harden the disbelief of nonbelievers. But the idea is simply not biblical. When Jesus raises Lazarus, “many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him” (Jn 11:45). The Pharisees become concerned that if Jesus goes on performing such miracles, “all men will believe in Him” (Jn 11:48). When Peter raises Aeneas, “all who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord” (Acts 9:35). When Peter raises Tabitha, “it became known all over Joppa, and many believed in the Lord” (Acts 9:42). When Paul blinds Elymas the magician, “the proconsul believed when he saw what had happened” (Acts 13:12). Jesus expects that miracles will convince people, and condemns Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum (Mt 11:21, 23) for failing to respond to them. (This is not to say that citing the miracles of the Bible will have the same apologetic effect today that it had in biblical times, for reasons we will mention briefly when we discuss David Hume.) There is a sense in which, for some people, their response to a miracle may have merely manifested the underlying condition of their heart such that those who were open responded, whereas those who were already hardened rejected the miracle and the message. But that is different from the miracle itself always and only either confirming people in belief or hardening them in unbelief, but never convincing.

Jesus also defends his message with scriptural arguments. For example, he confronts his opponents with the fact that the Messiah will be the son of David, and yet David can also call him “Lord” (Mk 12:35-37). And he defends his message logically. When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the power of Satan, Jesus points out the absurdity of the idea that Satan would fight his own forces. It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum, in which you show that your opponent’s position leads to an absurdity (Mt 12:25-26; Mk 12:26; Lk 11:17-18).

Like Jesus, the apostles seek to convince people of the truth. In his Pentecost sermon, Peter reasons with his Jewish audience from Scripture, appealing also to Jesus’ miracles (Acts 2:22) and the resurrection (Acts 2:24). Paul customarily goes to synagogues and “reason[s] with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence” (Acts 17:2-3; cf. Acts 18:4, 19; 19:8). Acts notes with approval those who were powerful at defending the truth of the gospel and refuting objections (Stephen, Acts 6:10; Paul, Acts 9:22; Apollos, Acts 18:28). Paul includes the ability to refute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a qualification of an elder (Tit 1:9; nonbelievers, cf. Tit 1:10-16).

In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection from some Jews: How could Jesus be the Messiah, or even be sent from God, if he was hanged on a cross and died? Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed, but explains that Christ died a substitutionary death for sin, taking the curse for our sin on himself (Gal 3:13; see Deut 21:23). He also defends salvation by grace through faith in the face of Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 3:6-12).

Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences. After healing a man at Lystra, he confronts the peoples’ devotion to the Greek deities. He says that God “did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). All the while God had been showing people his true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities of nature. This echoes the words of Psalm 19, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God” (Ps 19:1). The regularities of the universe (Ps 19:2, “day to day,” “night to night”) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 19:3, “no speech, nor are there words”) that reaches “through all the earth” (Ps 19:4).

Paul’s most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable sermon in Acts 17 to some of the intelligentsia of the day. Discussion of the sermon could fill a chapter of its own, but we could say briefly that he first gets their attention (Acts 17:22-23), then says things that agree with their views (Acts 17:24-29), and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 17:30-31). To those unfamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views, it appears that Paul is confronting them from start to finish. But actually he is showing some agreement. He no doubt was well acquainted with the views of the Stoics, in part because his hometown, Tarsus, was a major Stoic center. Stoics held that God is not confined to temples and idols (Acts 17:24), nor is he like the mythic gods who have needs (Acts 17:25). He is much bigger than that (Acts 17:29). He is immanent in the world (Acts 17:27). Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek cultural chauvinism), Stoics held that humanity is a unity1 (Acts 17:27-28). But just when his audience would have felt like standing and cheering, Paul confronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts of the gospel that would have been foreign to any Greek. He mentions judgment through Christ and the resurrection (Acts 17:31). The Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul, so the idea of rejoining one’s body in the afterlife would have made no sense. And that’s when the meeting breaks up (Acts 17:32).

Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 17 presentation. Some also regard 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 as a statement of confession and resolve not to dabble in philosophical talk again, but instead to give a straightforward presentation of the gospel. However, those who hold the sermon to be no less exemplary than Paul’s other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens. Nor do the passages necessarily conflict. He says to the believing Corinthians that he wants their faith to rest on the power of God rather than human wisdom, and he focuses on Christ. To the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts their views with Christianity, and talks about Christ.

There is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong. It would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the speech is so important. It is the most detailed of the apostle’s encounters with Gentiles, and it is in no less than Athens, the center of thought in the ancient world. Furthermore, the supposedly errant features of the speech are also in his brief address at Lystra (Acts 14:15-17): he quotes no Scripture, and does not focus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally, he also mentions God’s patience, Acts 14:16; cf. Acts 17:30). It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent order, Acts 14:17). So if Paul is wrong in Acts 17 he is also wrong in Acts 14, yet neither context indicates he is.

Luke ends his account of the speech with its results. Some reject the message, some want to hear more and “some men joined him and believed” (Acts 17:34). One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite, who tradition says became important in the early church. So if the speech was a failure, it had a remarkable effect.

Though Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture, he does present scriptural ideas. It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people even apart from Scripture—which fits what he says in Romans 1. There he explains that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some basic knowledge of God and his moral law (Rom 1:19, 32; cf. Rom 2:14-15): “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Rom 1:20 [emphasis added]). He does not go into detail, but it seems that everyone can make a simple inference to the existence of God. Creation allows people to clearly see “His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature” (Rom 1:20). Those who worship some demeaning and idolatrous distortion of God are denying that basic awareness available to every human (Rom 1:21, 23). There is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is referring to a noninferential, or nondiscursive, awareness of God, that we simply become aware of God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see, is held by Alvin Plantinga, and is considered possible by William Lane Craig).

Whatever is available about God through inference or immediate awareness is, however, not specific enough to include the gospel. Paul says that the contents of the gospel come only through a human mes...