I just finished listening to a wonderful debate on "Is God a Delusion" between William Lane Craig and Lewis Wolpert. It can be found here:
http://apologetics.blogspot.com/2009/09/william-lane-craig-vs-lewis-wolpert-is.html
I highly suggest taking the 1.5 hours to listen (put it in your mp3 player) because it is a great example of several things I have come to believe about apologetics.
1) When I first got into apologetics (around 2005) I was under a strong belief that good evidence could persuade people of God's existence and of Christ's resurrection. I imagined that a logical argument would convince any rational person. I never saw any fruit of that thinking.
Numerous debates and discussions later, I decided that apologetics and debating was primarily for the strengthening of the believer, not the persuasion of the unbeliever. Believers have doubts, and that's a natural and ok thing. What we want to avoid is crippling doubt, the kind that stops you from living a life with God as your highest treasure. To combat that doubt, apologetics can be a useful tool.
The debate between these two men is good in showing that science and faith are not exclusive (despite what the Discovery and History channels say) and that our faith is confirmed to a good extent with rational evidences. That should be encouraging to us when we hit a "doubtbump."
2) The debate also gives a clear view of why the Holy Spirit must be the persuader and convincer in salvation. Dr. Wolpert is bombarded in the debate with natural and logical evidence for the reality of God and of Jesus.
Each and every time Dr. Wolpert responds to Dr. Craig, he refuses to address the issue or the evidence, he simply dismisses it out of hand. Wolpert is so presuppositionally rooted in his atheism that he can't follow the evidence. He is dead in his trespasses and no amount of talking will bring him to life.
The only thing that brings dead people back is recessitation. That comes by means of divine CPR. The Spirit of God moves to bring the dead to life (the new birth, being born again) and he uses a variety of people, things, and situations to do so.
It may be that the Spirit uses apologetics and debates to occasionally change the nature of fallen men. Praise God for that, but don't forget that it wasn't the argument or the evidence itself that instituted that persons salvation...it was the Lord.
Sola Gloria
How do you know that the Bible is the Word of God?
ReplyDeleteOne of the harder questions. I can only say that the bible itself is proof that there must have been something bigger than us behind it.
ReplyDeleteWritten over 2500 years, 66 books, numerous different authors...yet, all one portrait. The continuity, clarity, and convincing nature of the book as a whole is why I wouls say that there is no way human beings put all that together themselves.
That said, it is a difficult question because it is one for which there is less "real" evidence than mant of the other questions.
Logic and natural law can establish God. The circumstances around he ressurection give us good reason to believe in a risen Jesus. But, the inspiration of the Bible is very close to a doctrine held by pure faith.
Maybe you or others have some better ways to look at the question. I am interested to hear.
We've talked about this...once, I think.
ReplyDeleteOur confession has it right: the Holy Spirit is the One who best testifies to us the glory of Scripture (WCF 1.10). Accurate, but not particularly convincing.
If our apologetic argument flows as you described (proof of theism -> proof of resurrection [of course, that's only one miracle in the entire Bible] -> dealing with Scripture), I see no way to avoid conveniently letting the Holy Spirit (or Scripture) in the back door.
Which is why Van Til argued that apologetics is merely the outward face of systematic theology. We're defending Christianity, not theism or supernaturalism per se.
So I'd urge you to start with a positive statement of what Christianity is, and then answer your opponent's questions from a clearly Christian position. Don't pretend at neutrality, and don't let him either. He ought to see how Scripture plays a role as a presupposition for all of your thought, and hopefully invite you to discuss his presuppositions as well.
If you can defend how you know anything at all while graciously calling him to do the same thing, you may be on your way to a profitable, God-glorifying discussion.
And knowing you, you'll want a book. Start saving and get yourself a copy of Van Til's apologetic. I'm not parting with mine for any length of time. I mean, you can come to my house and flip through it, but it stays in the library. :)