The trouble with people and language is specific words can loose their significance by the people that use the words; this happens in theology and Christian living. We use the word 'grace', it's in our churches names, worship songs/hymns, bumper stickers, and T-shirts, but is it in the understanding of our hearts? What is grace? How is it properly defined? The dust of confusion will settle only when terms are properly defined. Once we understand the meaning of grace, and therefore its significance, we cannot help but to savor it. Grace is much like a diamond with many different facets to it but there is a definite meaning behind it. Grace is God's goodness actively to us and for us such that we get what we don't deserve; instead of receiving God's just punishment, we get the gift of God's righteousness in Christ. We get God, when we deserve the rod. But we miss the unconditional, free, nature of grace. It cannot be obligated nor should it be trivialized. Yet we often do both! Or we depreciate grace by mistaking it for mercy. But one is not the other. Mercy is not getting what is deserved. Grace is much more profound. It stretches the limits of our minds and the depths of our hearts. It gives us all that we could ever need, ask or hope for in the place of what we've earned, deserved or entitled.
There is a great emphasis on the Ten Commandments in evangelism. The Ten Commandments are preached to give particular examples of sin that might show a person's need of forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ. But should New Testament believers use primarily, if at all, the Ten Commandments as the standard of righteousness for gentiles and specifically New Testament believers? If so, why? The common answer is since the Ten Commandments are God's eternal moral law. The problems I see with this answer are: (1) it seems deep on the surface but underneath shallow; it does not seem to take seriously the continuity and discontinuity of the covenants, (2) it presupposes the tripartite division of divine law as moral, civil and ceremonial, when all of God's laws are moral in nature, (3) all of God's words either, written directly or indirectly, spoken or written, carries the same inerrant, inspired, infallible, authority, (4) it does not deal with the texts in the NT that seem to suggest a change of covenant (Jer 31:31-34) and law (1 Cor 9:21; Heb 7:12). Likewise, parsimony would suggest that, perhaps, the eternal law of God is simply the two commandments to love God and our fellow man. Indeed, the Ten Commandments may be found in these two commandments, but one cannot from these two commandments extract the Ten Commandments. Theses laws are not clearly transitive.
Some of the greatest revelations from God, about Himself, are often forgotten. I think there are a lot of things that can be pointed to as reasons for forgetting what God has revealed. Insecurity and laziness are some specific reasons. These can become idols that enslave. For example, we feel insecure about studying doctrines that are deep and difficult. So we excuse ourselves from this task by reserving this task strictly to our Pastors' (after all, they have degrees in theology). Insecurities help us become lazy by relying too much on our Pastors' sermons instead of studying for ourselves. These idols of insecurity and laziness begin to shape how we view God. They control us, even to the point that they motivate us to keep control over our lives from God. They can lead to God being ignored from the Bible. Such that, we become more susceptible to throwing out Biblical exegesis and systematic theology. In turn, our idols "tell us" God has become untrustworthy and/or distant.
The solution is to: (1) identify any given idol of our hearts, and (2) regard it for what it is in light of God's revelation, namely an idol; finally, (3) turn from any given idol to the only true God, whom paid the penalty for sins at Calvary, so that in Him and through Him God can conform us to His image. By the eyes of faith , we can repent, believe, and rejoice in what Christ has done on our behalf. He died in our place to rescue us from sin--from idolatry-- that in Him we would become the children of God. The rags to riches story come true. So we are to no longer live ruled by idols for meaning, purpose or value. Idols cannot give any of these things. All they can do is enslave us on an endless search for meaning, purpose and value where it cannot be found. Meaning, purpose and value can only be found in Christ. Only in Him do we see God's goodness, love and grace poured out for us on the cross. He who is beautiful become ugly for us that we might be beautiful in God's sight. He who was invulnerable become vulnerable that we might find safety and security in Him. Despair and defeat is conquered, by hope and victory in, and through, Christ's death, burial and resurrection.
Too often there is more dispute on how Presuppositional apologetics should be performed and less practical instruction on how to put it to use.
There are many great men who have made successful efforts to fill in these gaps in presuppositional apologetics application. John Frame, Greg Bahnsen, James Anderson, Jason Lisle and Sye Ten Bruggencate all come to mind.
Where Do We Start?
We show existence, truth, goodness, justice, and beauty, can only be made sense of by the truth of Christianity alone. This can take effect in various ways. But it always involves comparing worldviews. We show Christianity to be true by demonstrating its logical opposite is false. Two principles must be followed in this process, (1) no one can be religiously neutral in their beliefs, and (2) no one, except God, can claim the rights of power and authority over all things, especially in intellectual or moral judgements.
Some one-liner objections I recently encounter on the college campus.
1. That's your interpretation.
2. God is prideful
3. God is unloving if babies go to hell
4. The Bible is not God's word.
5. The Bible has been corrupted
6. Genocide is not justice. 7. The heathen goes to hell without any hope.
How can all these objections be answered properly without getting away from the gospel? All these questions can successfully be addressed by attacking the underlying presuppositions. Make God in all reasoning the ultimate standard. Man cannot be elevated to the position of God to judge Him. Man must be brought down intellectually to face his position before God--a mere limited creature dependent upon God for everything. Let's try to do this. How would you answer these above one-liners?
1. That's your interpretation. Often this objection is given to a particular passage or doctrinal teaching of scripture. You can always quote the disputed passage of Scripture. Ask the objector, "why do you say I am not interpreting this passage correctly?" And then proceed to tell the person its a quotation. Notice the objector has made a fatal move in his objection. By pressing hard against the scripture's plain meaning, the objector substitutes its content with his desired meaning. He thinks the text has more than one valid interpretation. One interpretation is no better than another. The problem is the objector cannot possibly claim to know the text has multiple valid interpretations unless the objector also claims to interpret the text better than you. Thus the objector refutes himself. The objector claims, "nobody's interpretation is any better;" but in the same breath utters, "except my interpretation that nobody's interpretation is any better." To keep God first in handling this objection one can always simply say, "since you are limited in knowledge how can you know? You are not God, yet you elevate yourself in the place of God to judge God. By who's authority, power, and right do you sit in judgement of God? If you arbitrarily appoint yourself as judge over God, you are no less than irrational, and no better than insane." 2. God is prideful. This objection takes pride to be immoral. One could challenge the objector to make sense of morals without God. Or one can say the objector is a hypocrite, since he judges God as prideful, yet the objector makes the objection out of pride. He says in his heart, " at least I am not like that." The objector can rightly be corrected by biblical theology. God is the most perfect being and thus there is no pride that resides in Him. He ought to be praised, honored and glorified, not merely because he commands it, but, since he deserves it. He commands, deserves, and is worthy of, worship.
3. God is unloving if babies go to hell. This is a sensitive issue which should be answered with precision and caution. I'd say Christ died for all those that will, or physically cannot (i.e. mentally disabled or infants), believe. Other plausible positions can be argued for as well. Let us assume though God sends babies to hell. How would this be unloving or unjust? Where can love or justice exist without God? God is the source of love and justice. Does not God have the right to do what He wants with His creation? Who are we, as limited humans, to question God? Is it not possible that God would still love them even in hell? The Scriptures teach us no one is innocent of sin. All humans are guilty of sin. Thus God would be perfectly just to send all mankind to hell. Yet God chose in His mercy to redeem and transform people from their sins in Jesus Christ. And I believe God, in His providence and compassion, saves those He has not given the time or physical ability to exercise faith in Christ to magnify His justice, mercy, love and grace. 4. The Bible is not God's Word. Such an objection assumes the objecter knows the Bible is not God's Word. But how can a creature with limited knowledge know this? How does the objector know there is no evidence proving the Bible is God's Word? Often this objection is made with a cluster of beliefs that drive it. So probe the objector with questions to get to the root of the problem. Underlying all these objections is the commitment that the objector is the standard of truth. This commitment must be challenged by the Bible itself. First, do this by showing the objector's prejudice against the Bible. Second, demonstrate the necessity of starting first with God to even approach the question of whether or not the Bible is or isn't God's Word. Third, reveal the glaring gaps in the objector's knowledge by explaining the historical reliability of the Scriptures, fulfilled prophecies, and archaeological discoveries. Show the Bible alone provides us with explanation, consistency, coherence, conscience, hope, fulfillment and livability. It takes us from a limited perspective to an incorporation of the normative, existential and situational perspectives that finds completeness, an objective perspective, in Christ. That is to say, it brings us from the limited to the complete in Christ alone.
5. The Bible has been corrupted. This objection can be taken as a shot in the dark. Simply ask, " can you prove this?" The objection is at its heart autobiographical information of the objector. It is merely the objector's opinion.
6. Genocide is not justice. Why is genocide wrong to the objector since he rejects God? How can justice make sense if God is not taken as King in our beliefs? Once again, though, the objector is ignorant of Biblical theology. First, God has the right to dispose of His creation however He sees fit. Second, God is the locus of moral perfection, therefore, He alone is the standard of goodness. Third, all humans are guilty, so God can never be charged with Genocide. God can only be seen as enforcing justice. 7. The heathen goes to hell without any hope. There are multiple views on how to rightly answer this objection. I will simply say, that given general and/or special revelation, no one can claim to be without hope of knowing God since He has given us all sufficient knowledge of Himself. The heathen that goes to hell goes willfully rejecting God. He had enough revelation from God, to exercise faith in God, but He chose to fashion an idol in His place.
As a Calvinist open-air preacher, I occasionally find myself saying things I wish I could retract. Since open-air preaching requires one to think and speak quickly. It is easy for a preacher, unintentionally, to preach something doctrinally unsound. Quite recently, I did precisely that. I began to preach on the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ, but when I got to the subject of the atonement, however, I unintentionally preached universal atonement. In retrospect, this occurrence was due to simplicity and ambiguity (i.e. the necessary distinctions and nuances to clarify precise doctrine was not made). I preached that Christ died for the sins of all those that----will repent and trust in Christ alone for salvation. The way in which this statement is phrased, isolated from all the other precious truths of God's gifts of repentance and faith (2 Tim 2:25; Eph 2:8-10), gives the false impression that Christ's death on the cross is ineffectual apart from man's contribution of repentance and faith.
So how can one rightly preach definite atonement in the open-air? Let's look at how some do it.
Tony Miano writes,
"God is also merciful, loving, and kind in that He provided one way to escape that punishment; and that was through the gift of His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ: fully-God and fully-Man, without sin. He died on the cross a death He did not deserve, in order to take upon Himself the punishment you rightly deserve, for your sins against God. And then three days later He forever defeated sin and death when He rose from the grave. What God requires of you is that you repent (turn from your sin and turn toward God) and by faith alone, receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior."(1)
Matt Slick explains,
"The gospel is historical event where Jesus died for sinners on the cross, was buried, and rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-4). His death was a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God (1 John 2:2). This is the only way to be saved from God's righteous judgment upon those who have sinned by breaking his Law. Jesus is the one who died for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). He is the only way to God the Father (John 14:6). He alone reveals God (Matt. 11:27). He has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). It is only through Him that you can be saved from God's wrath (Eph. 2:3). He can forgive you of your sin (Luke 5:20; Matt. 9:1-8). He can remove the guilt that is upon your soul. Jesus can set you free from the bondage of sin that blinds your eyes, weakens your soul, and brings you to despair. He can do this because He bore sin in His body on the cross (1 Peter. 2:24) so that those who trust in Him would be saved."(2)
James D. Kennedy states,
"He [Jesus] died on the cross and rose from the dead to pay the penalty for our sins and purchase a place in Heaven for us."(3)
John Piper declares,
"The good news is that Christ died for sinners like us. And he rose physically from the dead to validate the saving power of his death and to open the gates of eternal life and joy (1 Corinthians 15:20). This means God can acquit guilty sinners and still be just (Romans 3:25-26). “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18). Coming home to God is where all deep and lasting satisfaction is found." (4)
Paul Washer further expounds,
"Motivated by Love
God is love. By this the love of God is manifested in us, that God sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 1 John 4:8-10
The Cross of Christ
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:23-26"(5)
Thoughts on how to preach definite atonement. 1. Stick to the text. If you continue to quote Scripture on the subject you can't go wrong. Simply because you are not trusting in your personal formulations but on God's formulations. 2. Don't be afraid to clarify parts of the gospel by carefully articulating how it relates to the whole gospel. --------------------------------- (1)Tony Miano.http://www.shop.onemilliontracts.com/Are-You-Ready-Gospel-Tract-50ct-25x35-075.htm (2)Matt Slick. http://carm.org/jesus-saves (3) James D. Kennedy. Evangelism Explosion International: New Testament NKJV (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982)B15. (4)John Piper. Quest For Joy. http://www.crossway.org/tracts/quest-for-joy-2838/ (5)Paul Washer. http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/the-gospel
Sye wanted a review that made criticisms of the DVD so here is my feeble attempt to do just that.
Everyone can use a reminder of something important. And everyone can be taught more than he/she knows. Sye Ten Bruggencate has done a synthesis of both reminding Christians Christ is the ultimate source and treasure of knowledge plus wisdom; and it is this teaching that must be central in apologetics.
I do not want to rehearse the material in the DVD here, but I strongly recommend every church and Christian get a copy. It effectively answers both the "why" and "how" presuppositional apologetics should be done in a down to earth level. Buy it HERE
Constructive Criticism
1. Sye's questions that he asks unbelievers could be developed to interact with contemporary religious epistemology (RE). Sye portrays justification of beliefs as though they always lead to an infinite regress. This may not be the case if we acknowledge one can aquire a properly basic belief by a reliable belief forming process or mechanism which may be unknown to the person that acquired the belief. Sye seems to make justification of beliefs internal to the believer in such a way he/she must be able to identify the reasons that justify his belief, whereas one could argue the believer gains a properly basic belief by a reliable belief forming process or mechanism which may be unknown in some way to the believer. For example, percisely how does God regenerate a person? He changes him, right? But by what process? Honestly we have to say its a mystery. What's the point? The unbeliever can take up a form of RE that may not be so easy to defeat.
2. Rene Decartes pointed out that if a person deceives us once it leaves us in doubt of if the person can be trusted. The same goes with our 5 senses. If they have deceived us once, how can we trust them to give us truth? Sye argues Christians possess certain knowledge from God. This entails Christians have infallible knowledge. But how can Christians have infallible knowledge from God by fallible means via the 5 senses? Sye overcomes this problem, though I don't think successfully, by arguing God can use fallible means to bring about infallible results. But logically how can this be? In my judgment, the concept of infallible cannot be mixed with the fallible. Why? What do these concepts state? Infallible means "always without error" or consistently 'error-free.' Fallible means always with error or consistently 'error-prone.' So what follows logically then is one cannot get infallible knowledge from a fallible means. Unless of course God makes one's 5 senses infallible. But this seems logically incredible. That would be like saying God created a person with a beginning but then chose to create the person with no beginning. God created humans with the capacity to error but then overcame that capacity and made them from beginning to end without the capacity to error. This would have to be the case because infallibility requires from beginning to end no room for error. Thus mere reliablism will not do the job.
I think a more consistent position would be like Vincent Cheungs' as advocated in his essay entitled, "The Fatal Maneuver."[1] However, I disagree with this position for reasons as AquaScum articulates.
3. Presuppositionalism is inductive and not deductive, therefore it cannot provide a transcendental proof that yields a certain and necessary conclusion. [2] It goes from the concrete to the conceptual on the basis of the concrete without establishing either as logically certain or necessary. This is why I am more inclined to argue for presuppositionalism from the heart as John Frame, and James Anderson.
I think these criticisms can be answered. Sye has said some things that help answer criticism (2) and (3) HERE [1] Vincent Cheung. Captive to Reason. http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/captivereason2009.pdf p.38 [2] Brian Bosse. http://www.christianlogic.com/images/uploads/Critique-VanTil.pdf Steve Hays. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/more-on-tag-and-certainity_05.html
Some of the most common objections on college campuses.
1. Prove God exists.
In what way would the person asking this objection accept "proof"? Empirical, logical or historical proof? How about all three. If you deny the God of Scripture exists you must affirm there is no such thing as proof. Since God is the foundation for logic, and regularity of nature. How's that for proof that God exists?
2. The Bible is written by men so it cannot be infallible. This is a Non-sequetor. Why can't man tell the truth in a book? Men do it all the time in college textbooks, right?
3. God cannot send people to hell just for not believing in him. Who says men go to hell for simply unbelief? The true nature of sin demands the holy and good God send people to hell.
4. There is more than one way to God. So if my way affirms there is exclusively only one way to God by Jesus Christ is this true to get me to God? If you say yes, then you agree there is only one way, but if you disagree, then all ways do not lead to God, specifically Christianity?
5. If God exists why is there evil? God has a morally sufficient reason for planning evil.
6. There are contradictions in the Bible. Where? Christians affirm contradictions are wrong because they do not reflect God's perfect rationality he created us to reflect. But why should a non-Christian care about contradictions?
7. Christianity borrows from Paganism. This is a genetic fallacy. True beliefs can be acquired independently from a group without having to borrow from another group.
8. Christians don't have the right to judge people according to Jesus.Yes he does say judge righteous judgement.
9. Jesus never claimed to be God. Ok then why did he die? The Jews wanted him killed because of what? Blasphemy, right? What did he say that would provoke the Jews to charge Jesus with blasphemy? John 8:58-59 makes it evident Jesus was claiming deity.
10. Christianity is just a institution established by the elites to keep power over the non-elites. Utterly arbitrary! But so what if its true? It doesn't negate Christianity's truth.
11. Christianity is just a projection of man's nature. Genetic fallacy.
12. Science proves Christianity is false. How so? Given my answer to (1 ) it actually proves it true.
13. What will happen to people in foreign lands who have never heard the gospel? They will go to hell for their willful ignorance. God has given us all sufficient knowledge to serve Him. But many still rebel against him.
A
lot of evangelists these days have been witnessing at abortion clinics. I think
this is much needed, especially in our culture where it is saturated in
autonomy and man-centeredness. The true nature of abortion needs to be
confronted with God’s truth! But I think another issue related to abortion that
is both controversial and sensitive to all hearts needs to be addressed as abortion. What is the issue? It is the status of babies
when they die. Do "little persons" when they die go to heaven or
hell? Great men have respectfully disagreed on this issue.
In
my judgment there are only three options, and two of them, I hope to show,
reduce down to one position. The first position is all babies go to hell. It is
alarming to our intuitions to think such a thing but often times God’s truth
shatters what we think is morally right. This position is straightforwardly
argued on the basis of original sin. If babies have both Adam’s imputed guilt,
and disposition, then they are justly culpable.
The
second position is all elect babies go to heaven. This position is argued on
the basis that God will hold all mankind accountable for Adam’s guilt,
disposition, and personal sins. But God has chosen a particular people
(including “some” infants) to himself to save by propitiation through the life,
death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They are saved and justified by
grace through Christ’s atonement. On this view then God saves people two
different ways. He either gives people faith to believe in Christ. Or He
considers the elect people incapable to believe, i.e. infants or mentally
disabled, as those in whom Christ’s righteousness and atonement is imputed. Thus
one group of elect capable of exercising faith in God’s providence is justified
by grace through faith in Christ. However, given God’s providence, there is
another group of elect incapable of exercising faith in Christ, but Christ died
on their behalf, so God declares them justified through Christ’s imputed
righteousness and atonement.
The
last and final view is like the first. It states all elect babies will go to
heaven, but adds, and all babies that die are elect. This position is identical
to the previous position the difference lies in the acknowledgement of the
quantity of babies that die are of the elect. The previous view argues some of
the babies that die are of the elect whereas the latter view argues all the
babies that die are of the elect. The arguments for the former and latter
position, oddly enough, apply to both positions. So based on the arguments both
the former and latter position collapses into one position. And therefore it
becomes utterly arbitrary for a person to argue either some babies that die are
elect or all babies that die are elect. Why? The arguments used by both views
can forcefully establish either view. Now some unsatisfied with this
predicament have taken up a pragmatic argument against the last position. They
say that if such a position is true it morally justifies abortion. Since
abortion would guarantee a baby into heaven. What is the problem with this
argument? First, it is irrelevant to the moral status of abortion. Abortion is
murder. And God has revealed murder is morally wrong. So nothing can justify a
clear violation of God’s revealed law. But if you disagree, then you must ask
your self, does the end always justify the means? If you say yes, then you undoubtedly
hold to the most unbiblical, abhorring, monstrous utilitarianism that would
even make Peter Singer cringe. A different approach to defend the latter
position has also developed. Let's use Albert Mohler and Daniel
Akin’s arguments as an example. Mohler and Akin write,
“First, the Bible revealsthat we are “brought forth in iniquity,”(1) and thus bear the stain of originalsin from the moment of our conception. Thus, we face squarely the sin problem.Second, we acknowledge that God is absolutely sovereign in salvation. We do not deserve salvation, and can do nothing to earn our salvation, and thus it is allof grace. Further we understand that our salvation is established by God’s election of sinners to salvation throughChrist. Third, we affirm that Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is the soleand sufficient Savior, and that salvation comes only on the basis of His bloodatonement. Fourth, we affirm that the Bible teaches a dual eternal destiny –the redeemed to Heaven, the unredeemed to Hell.
So far so good! What is said is biblically orthodox.
"What, then is our basis for claiming that all those who diein infancy are among the elect? First, the Bible teaches that we are to bejudged on the basis of our deeds committed “in the body.”(2) That is, we willface the judgment seat of Christ and be judged, not on the basis of original sin, but for our sins committed during our own lifetimes. Each will answer“according to what he has done,”(3) and not for the sin of Adam. The imputationof Adam’s sin and guilt explains ourinability to respond to God without regeneration, but the Bible does not teachthat we will answer for Adam’s sin. Wewill answer for our own. But what about infants? Have those who die in infancycommitted such sins in the body? We believe not."
The
argument Mohler and Akin makes, as is articulated, denies infants are
accountable for Adam's guilt. They therefore deny original sin. Such a position
as so articulated is biblically unacceptable. A few revisions may be made to
their argument to be immune to such criticism. First, we must admit God can
hold all mankind (including infants and mentally disabled) accountable for
Adams guilt. In fact, evidence that He in "some sense" does is by the
death of all mankind. Secondly, we hold that God states He will judge all
mankind for what they have done in the body. Thirdly, we state God can justly
hold infants and the mentally disable accountable for Adams guilt, but, God in
His grace and mercy, has revealed He has chosen not to hold infants and
mentally handicapped for Adams guilt but instead has chosen to judge mankind by
the deeds done in the body. Original sin as articulated is not denied on such a
view. God can justly hold infants accountable for Adams guilt if He so chooses.
But given God's providence and progressive revelation, it is admitted, He has
revealed He will not hold them accountable for Adams guilt but graciously will
judge them by the deeds done in the body. Some may still object and say such a
view denies original sin in substance. For example, if John inherits a house.
Lets say a relative left the house in debt to John. The debt can justly be
transferred to John that inherited the house. So it is acknowledged thus far
John can and is justly accountable for the debt transferred from relative to
inheriting family member. But what if the debt collector or bank officer makes
it where debt, though it is transferable, will no longer bind all members of
any family responsible for debt attained by one member of any family? Each
member would only be required to give an account for his or her own debt. But
doesn’t this deny that the debt collector or bank officer will in fact hold the
person responsible for the transferred debt? Yes. So how then can it be said it
doesn't deny transferred debt accountability? Since it is admitted that such a
debt exists and can be justly prosecuted. The main concern is resolved in the
authorities provision to not collect the debt (from those who inherent it) but
rather holding the respective person or persons who procured the debt as
responsible for paying the debt. So it is all of grace, and grace
alone.
My view would simply be that God will hold all
mankind accountable for Adam's guilt, disposition, and personal sins; but in
His providence, He has satisfied divine justice on behalf of all infants that
die through Christ, and therefore, all infants that die will enter heaven. I justify my position threefold. (1) Romans 8
and 9 teach God elects individuals to salvation. (2) All arguments used to
justify that God elects some infants that die to salvation can equally justify
God's election of all babies that die to salvation. (3) Punishment of infants
(that do not have the capacity to consciously be sorrowful, and know why they
are being punished) in hell seems to undermine Divine justice. I say this since
I see two requirements from scripture of Divine justice. (1) A person's
punishment is proportionate to his/her sin. (2) Any person punished is informed
why he/she is justly being punished.
Mohler and Akin continues,
"Jesus instructed hisdisciples that they should “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinderthem; for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”(8) We believe that our Lord graciously and freely received all those who die in infancy – not on thebasis of their innocence or worthiness – but by his grace, made theirs throughthe atonement He purchased on the cross.
When we look into thegrave of one of these little ones, we do not place our hope and trust in thefalse promises of an unbiblical theology, in the instability of sentimentalism,in the cold analysis of human logic, nor in the cowardly refuge of ambiguity.
We place our faith in Christ, and trust Him to be faithful to his Word. We claim the promises of the Scriptures and the assurance of the grace of our Lord. We know that heaven will be filled with those who never grewto maturity on earth, but in heaven will greet us completed in Christ. Let usresolve by grace to meet them there.”
I say Amen!
(1) Psalm 51:5
(2) 2 Corinthians 5:10
(3) Ibid
Albert Mohler and Daniel Akin. The Salvation of the 'Little Ones': Do Infants who Die go to Heaven? 2009. Here
Whenever I had questions I would email James Anderson for help. I figured many readers would benefit from my questions and Dr. Anderson's responses.
My first email:
James Anderson,
You are perhaps busy, but could you help answer a question
concerning Presuppositional Epistemology. I have been debating some
local Atheists in my area. I presented a formulation of
the transcendental argument in regards to induction. This led to a
discussion on epistemic justification. One of the atheists claimed that
knowledge is circular and thus it is perfectly justified to make inductive
inferences from experience. He continued to argue that in the case of the reliability
of the five senses, they are established as such based on
experience. Eventually the discussion centered on the
five senses and Christian epistemology. I think this atheist must of read
Vincent Cheung's article "The Fatal Maneuver" because his
argumentation made me feel like I had to choose between Revelation or
sensation. The atheist argued that Christians must presuppose the
reliability of their five senses in order to read the Bible, and then they
are able to argue from the scriptures that God is the precondition for
the reliability of the senses, induction, knowledge or human experience in
general. The atheist claimed that this leaves Christians in two circles
of justification. The Christian presupposes the reliability of the 5
senses and justifies this fact by Scripture, but the reading of
Scripture is justified by the reliability of the 5 senses. The
atheist claimed that Christians are guilty of circular reasoning
just as much as atheists are, the difference is that atheists just stick with
one circle for justification, i.e. atheists just assume that the
reliability of the senses or induction is justified by
experience. The atheist concluded by saying that both atheists
and Christians are no better off for accounting for the reliability of the
senses or induction. So my question is as a Presuppositionalist
how should I respond to this claim that Christian's must establish the
reliability of the senses before one can appeal to the scriptures, which is
only accessible by the senses?
Dr. Anderson's reply:
What exactly does he [the atheist] mean by "knowledge is
circular"? If he means
something like the following...
1. We can justify P on the basis of Q .
2. We can justify Q on the basis of P.
...then I honestly don't know of any contemporary
epistemologist who would support that idea.For that's almost a textbook case of a vicious epistemic circularity.Hume famously observed that justifying induction on the basis of experience is question-begging
and I'm not aware of any epistemologist today who would try to justify
induction empirically.Does your atheist friend know of one? And he can't see that this is viciously circular?One can establish X empirically only if one's senses are reliable; hence it
begs the very point in question to try to establish empirically the
reliability of one's senses. There's no vicious circularity here, for two
reasons: (1) Christian theology holds that the existence of God can be known *a
priori* via natural revelation (Calvin's "sensus
divinitatis"); (2) the Christian isn't claiming that we can justify belief in the
reliability of the senses by appealing to belief in God or to belief in the
Bible.
The atheist completely misses the point here.Everyone in the debate takes for granted that our senses are reliable and that
we're justified in believing them to be reliable.The real question is: Which worldview, theism or naturalism, can *account* for
the reliability of our sense (and also our *a priori*
knowledge that they are reliable)?
The same goes for induction.Everyone (or nearly everyone!) in the debate takes for granted that inductive reasoning is
generally reliable.The
real question is: Which worldview, theism or naturalism, can *account* for the general reliability of
inductive reasoning?In
particular, which worldview can account for the inductive principle, i.e., the uniformity of nature in
time and space? Theism can readily account for (a) the uniformity of
nature and (b) our justified *a priori* belief in the uniformity of
nature. Naturalism, not so much! No, this is confused.The Christian doesn't justify the
reliability of the senses by appealing to Scripture.Rather, the Christian argues that the *biblical worldview* (i.e., the worldview
reflected in Scripture) can account for the reliability of the sense
whereas the *naturalist worldview* cannot.That is to say, the Christian can offer a ready explanation for the reliability of his
senses in terms of his worldview, whereas the atheist cannot do so.To put the point another way: if the biblical worldview is true then the
assumption that our senses are reliable is most likely justified,
whereas if the naturalist worldview is true then that assumption is most
likely not justified.
Again, the relevant question isn't "How do we prove
that our sense are reliable?" but rather "Given that our senses are
reliable, which worldview can best account for that fact?"You respond by pointing out that this is a red herring:
neither the Christian nor the atheist needs to establish the
reliability of the senses.That
is a given in the debate.What's
at issue is which worldview (i.e., which view about the basic nature of
reality, the origin of the universe, the origin and nature of human
beings, the origin and nature of the human mind, etc.) can best
*account* for the reliability of the senses?
Here is an excellent sketch on Presuppositional apologetics by Sye Ten Burggencate.
Some helpful material I compiled from Van Til, Bahnsen,
Anderson, Lisle, and Cheung.
5 but in your hearts honor 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" 1 Peter 3:15
As this verse says "make a defense" that comes
from the Geek ἀπολογία
which
means to give an argument or reasoned response. Thus as
Christians we are to be
ready to give an argument for our faith with Christ at the
center of it. Our
argument is to honor Christ's lordship and our actions are
to exemplify
likeness of Christ. We are to be gentle and respectful to
all who ask of us a
justification of our faith.
"2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit
together in love, to reach
all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the
knowledge of God's
mystery, which is Christ,
3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge." Col 2:2-3
"7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;
fools despise wisdom and
instruction." Proverbs 1:7
"1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no
God." They are corrupt, they do
abominable deeds, there is none who does good. " Psalm
14:1
Biblical Guidelines
"1. That we use the same principle in apologetics that
we use in theology: the
self-attesting, self-explanatory Christ of Scripture.
2. That we no longer make an appeal to "common
notions" which Chris- tian and
non-Christian agree on, but to the "common
ground" which they actually have
because man and his world are what Scripture
says they are.
3. That we appeal to man as man, God's image. We do so only
if we set the
non-Christian principle of the rational autonomy of man
against the Christian
principle of the dependence of man's knowledge on God's
knowledge as revealed
in the person and by the Spirit of Christ.
4. That we claim, therefore, that Christianity alone is
reasonable for men to
hold. It is wholly irrational to hold any other position
than that of
Christianity. Christianity alone does not slay reason on
the altar of "chance."
5. That we argue, therefore, by "presupposition."
The Christian, as did
Tertullian, must contest the very principles of his
opponent's position. The
only "proof" of the Christian position is that
unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of "proving"
anything at all. The actual state of affairs as preached by Christianity is the
necessary foundation of "proof" itself.
6. That we preach with the understanding that the
acceptance of the Christ of
Scripture by sinners who, being alienated from God, seek to
flee his face, comes
about when the Holy Spirit, in the presence of inescapably
clear evidence, opens
their eyes so that they see things as they truly are.
7. That we present the message and evidence for the
Christian position as
clearly as possible, knowing that because man is what the
Christian says he is,
the non-Christian will be able to under- stand in an
intellectual sense the
issues involved. In so doing, we shall, to a large extent,
be telling him what
he "already knows" but seeks to suppress. This
"reminding" process provides
a fertile ground for the Holy Spirit, who in sovereign
grace may grant the
non-Christian repentance so that he may know him who is
life eternal. "[1]
An easy apologetics outline: AIM
A- Arbitrariness=Expose the unbelievers assertions that
have no justification.
I- Inconsistencies= Expose any inconsistencies in what
the unbeliever says.
M- Mistaken foundations for knowledge. One must demonstrate
only the Christian worldview can provide the necessary foundations or
presuppositions for knowledge. Only from the Christian worldview can one claim
to have knowledge (i.e. justified true beliefs) for two reasons:(1) The
absolute triune God has revealed truth to us in His Word and continues to
illuminate our minds by His Spirit (2) Scripture tells us all mankind are the image
bearers of God and hence possess intellects and wills that can reliably acquire
knowledge.[2] The goal is to show the unbeliever must assume the
Christian viewpoint to know anything with certainty. If any unbeliever claims to have
knowledge of anything, he can never be certain since one must either be God or
know God to have knowledge of anything. That is because one must be
everywhere at once, be outside of time and control everything in order to know
something. Since all facts are related to each other. And in order for one to
know a fact in its proper context one must know them all.
Unbelievers either reason in a circle putting human
reason or experience on the
throne as ruler and ultimate standard of their knowledge.
We must show only God
and His Word can rightly be the ultimate standard and
authority. Only God can
give us knowledge. Christians, too, argue in a circle. But
our circle from God’s
Word provides the necessary foundations/assumptions for
knowledge. Moreover, the
circle is rational since the authority appealed to as
ultimate is in fact
Ultimate, namely God. Unbelievers are forced into
skepticism and/or fideism.[3]
If a Christian gets stumped he can always resort to these
questions that can
be phrased in different forms.
“1. Why? A question that demands reasons for whatever is
asserted by the
unbeliever so the mistaken foundation can be exposed.
2. So? This question seeks to counter irrelevant things the
unbeliever asserts.
3. Really? The question exposes the fact Christianity is
the truth and the
unbeliever ought to reexamine his view. But most of all it
gives Christians
opportunity to show the unbeliever the necessity of
presupposing the Christian
worldview in order to have knowledge.”[4]
[1] Cornelius Van Til. The Defense of the Faith, 3rd
ed. rev. (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company,
1967), pp.298-99.
[2] I made my own acronym from Jason Lisle. The Ultimate
Proof Of Creation. (Green Forest: Master Books, 2009),pp.84-95.
