Latest / Reformed Thinking / Grounding Apologetics in Scripture

Transcript

Grounding Apologetics in Scripture · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reformed Thinking and our segment The Deep Dive.
0:04
This is where we really try to get into subjects that shape how
0:07
we as believers understand our faith and, well, how we talk
0:11
about it with others. That's right.
0:13
Today we're focusing on Christian apologetics.
0:16
You know, the reasoned defense of the faith.
0:18
Yeah, it's a practice that's been around forever, but it
0:20
feels incredibly current, doesn't it?
0:23
It really does. There's always a need to
0:25
articulate what we believe, so our mission today is to unpack a
0:29
specific approach called presuppositionalism.
0:32
It's this view that argues, essentially, that believing in
0:36
God isn't just one option among many worldviews.
0:39
It's actually the necessary foundation for all coherent
0:42
thought and reality itself. That's a big claim.
0:44
It is, and we want to understand how this unique viewpoint helps
0:48
faithful people present the Gospels truth with real
0:51
conviction and clarity. And we'll be drawing mainly from
0:54
a book called Reasons We Believe.
0:55
In some related talks by the author.
0:57
He gives a pretty clear framework for thinking about
1:00
this stuff. Which leads to the big question
1:02
we're tackling. How can we confidently present
1:04
our beliefs when, frankly, it often feels like the world
1:07
questions every single foundation we stand on?
1:10
Yeah, that's a crucial question. And I think this deep dive
1:14
offers a really solid, biblically grounded way to
1:18
engage with different world views.
1:20
It's relevant for anyone really who wants to be equipped to
1:24
speak about their faith clearly. And as we get into it, we'll
1:26
look at what the author calls the 3A's of presuppositional
1:31
ISM, Authority, AIM and agency. The 3A.
1:34
'S yeah, they provide a kind of sturdy structure for
1:36
understanding this method. And, you know, these insights
1:39
also really shed light on how we should use Christian evidence,
1:43
how it fits with God's Word, not just as a list of facts, but
1:46
something more integrated. OK, let's definitely unpack
1:48
this. I was really struck by that core
1:50
conflict the author talks about facing in seminary.
1:52
It feels very relatable, that kind of tension, right, between
1:55
holding a deep theological conviction and still wanting to
1:58
effectively talk to a skeptical world using arguments that
2:02
connect. I mean, what was that core
2:04
conflict for him during his training and how did working
2:07
through that internal struggle lead him to this, this practical
2:12
framework? Yeah, that's a great question,
2:14
and it really is the starting point for his whole journey into
2:16
apologetics. So during his seminary
2:19
apologetics class, his training was heavily, heavily rooted in
2:22
the presuppositional school. He was reading the big names,
2:26
you know, Cornelius Vantel, who basically insisted all reasoning
2:30
has to start from God's revealed truth, and Greg Bonson, who was
2:33
brilliant at applying Van Till's ideas in debates.
2:37
And he also really appreciated John Frame calls him his
2:40
personal apologetic hero for helping clarify these very
2:44
things we're discussing today. So this model argued, you know,
2:47
that any attempt to prove God exists or the Bible's true has
2:50
to start by presupposing God and the Bible's authority.
2:53
You can't build a case from some suppose mitral ground.
2:56
But at the same time, he found himself really appreciating,
2:59
even resonating with works from the evidential side of things.
3:03
You know, guys like Josh McDowell, famous for his
3:06
historical case for Christ, William Lane Craig, who's just a
3:09
master of philosophical arguments for God and the
3:11
resurrection, Gary Habermas, especially on the historical
3:15
evidence for the resurrection. Right, the big names in that
3:17
camp. Exactly, and their approach
3:20
usually starts with external data, history, science,
3:23
philosophy and builds the case for Christianity step by step.
3:27
So the conflict for him wasn't just academic, it was personal.
3:31
He genuinely felt like by even appreciating these evidential
3:35
approaches, he was somehow, you know, betraying his
3:38
presuppositional training. Wow, yeah, I can see that
3:41
tension. Yeah, and that feeling directly
3:43
pushed him to study. OK, How do Christian evidences
3:47
fit within a presuppositional framework?
3:49
How can you use them without giving up the ultimate authority
3:51
of God's Word and his book? Reasons We Believe was basically
3:55
his attempt to answer that. He describes it as a practical
3:57
book meant for believers to actually use, not some dense
4:00
philosophy text, although it's definitely built on a specific
4:03
philosophy. He consciously tried to avoid
4:05
using the classic jargon like suppositional in the main body
4:09
of the book itself, just to make it more accessible, you know?
4:12
So out of that personal struggle, that real desire to
4:16
reconcile these views that many saw as well totally opposed, he
4:21
came up with his understanding based on these three core ideas,
4:24
the 3A's. Can you walk us through what
4:26
those are? Absolutely.
4:28
He basically boiled down presuppositional ISM to these
4:31
three core concepts. They give a really solid
4:33
structure. They are authority, the aim of
4:36
apologetics and the agency of change in the human heart.
4:39
Authority Aim. Got it.
4:42
Again, he credits people like Bantil and Bahnson, but
4:44
especially John Frame, his hero, for helping him clarify these
4:48
specific aspects in a way that well fit his practical approach.
4:52
OK, so let's dive into that. First, a authority.
4:54
Now when we talk about ultimate authority in apologetics, well
4:58
for a lot of people the go to might be human reason, right?
5:02
Or maybe scientific discovery? Sure, that's common.
5:04
But in this framework, it sounds like the author plants his flag
5:08
somewhere else entirely. Where exactly does he say
5:12
ultimate authority lies? And how does that foundational
5:16
choice reshape everything else, even before we present a single
5:21
piece of evidence? Yeah, you hit on probably the
5:22
most critical point for this framework.
5:24
The ultimate non negotiable authority in apologetics is God
5:29
himself and his revealed word, the Bible.
5:32
And this isn't just an idea he came up with, it's anchored
5:34
right in Scripture. Think about Hebrews chapter 1
5:37
verses one and two. It says long ago God spoke by
5:40
the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his
5:43
Son. Right, Old Testament Word, then
5:45
the Incarnate Word. Exactly.
5:47
And then Christ himself. In passages like John 14 through
5:50
16, he promises the Holy Spirit will guide the apostles into all
5:53
truth, making His teaching known.
5:55
He clearly authorized them to continue his teaching, which
5:58
gave us the inspired New Testament writings.
5:59
So the authority flows directly from God through Christ to the
6:03
Scriptures. Precisely.
6:05
Which means any defense of the Bible and biblical Christianity
6:08
must start with the Bible. And it has to stem from the
6:10
Bible. It's not just a source of useful
6:12
quotes, it's the authoritative word of the Creator himself.
6:16
And here's a key concern the author raises.
6:19
If you appeal to extra biblical evidences first, you know,
6:23
before grounding them in Scripture, it can actually
6:25
reveal A subtle, maybe even unconscious, lack of trust in
6:30
the Bible as the primary source. Like saying I need science to
6:34
prove the Bible first. Exactly.
6:35
It sort of puts human reason or external findings above God's
6:39
own revelation. Instead, his view is look, if
6:42
Scripture itself presents a certain kind of evidence in its
6:45
own defense, then we as apologists have what he calls
6:48
presuppositional authority to use that same line of evidence.
6:51
OK, give me an example of that. Sure, he points to several right
6:54
from the Bible. Take the cosmological argument,
6:57
the idea that the universe's existence points to a creator.
7:00
Well, Genesis 1.1 says it plainly.
7:02
In the beginning God created. Romans one talks about God's
7:06
eternal power and divine nature being clearly seen through what
7:09
he's made. Acts 17 Paul talks to the
7:12
Athenians about the God who made the world and everything in it.
7:16
It's right there. O the Bible uses that argument
7:18
itself. Yes, or the teleological
7:20
argument. The argument from design.
7:22
Romans one again. Creation's incredible design
7:24
reveals the Creator or the moral law argument.
7:27
Our built in sense of right and wrong points to a divine
7:30
lawgiver. That's essentially what Paul
7:32
argues in Romans 2 about the law written on human arts.
7:35
OK, so the Bible provides the precedent for these arguments.
7:39
Exactly. Now this doesn't mean external
7:41
evidences from history, philosophy, science, reason,
7:44
experience aren't valuable. They absolutely are, but their
7:47
proper place is as secondary testimony.
7:50
They confirm the truthfulness of Scripture.
7:52
They don't establish it as true in the first place.
7:54
So the Bible establishes the truth.
7:56
External evidence confirms it. Precisely, it shows that what
8:00
the Bible declores is actually real and observable in the world
8:03
God made. And He also connects this to
8:05
passages like Proverbs 1.7 and 9.3.
8:09
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, and that
8:12
fear of the Lord is Isaiah 66.2 defines.
8:14
It involves recognizing and revering God, having a humble
8:18
contrite heart that trembles at His word, submitting to it.
8:22
So all true knowledge, and therefore our whole apologetic
8:25
starting point, begins with that humble submission to God's
8:28
authoritative word. It's a posture, really.
8:31
That gives us a very clear starting point.
8:33
God's Word is the ultimate authority.
8:35
It really dictates not just what we say, but how we even begin.
8:39
OK, So what about the second A the aim of apologetics?
8:41
If authority is the foundation, what's the ultimate goal?
8:44
What are we actually trying to achieve when we defend the
8:47
faith? Well, the ultimate aim according
8:49
to this framework is to point people directly to the person
8:53
and the work of Jesus Christ, and in doing that, fulfilling
8:56
the Great Commission by making disciples.
8:58
OK, so it's very Christ centered.
9:00
Absolutely. It means the goal isn't just to
9:02
convince people of general theism, you know, that some kind
9:05
of God exists out there, or even to win arguments about specific
9:08
doctrines like, say, young Earth creationism.
9:11
While those things might be helpful in clearing away
9:14
obstacles, they aren't the end goal in themselves.
9:17
The author uses the example of Antony Flu.
9:20
Remember him? The famous atheist philosopher
9:22
who late in life came to believe in a sort of deistic God, a
9:27
super intelligence. Yeah, I remember that.
9:29
Big news at the time. Huge news.
9:31
But the author points out while that was a massive intellectual
9:34
shift for Flu, he didn't embrace the God of the Bible.
9:37
And unless Flu actually embraced Jesus Christ, repented and
9:41
believed, he was still facing eternal judgement.
9:44
So theism isn't enough, it has to lead to Christ.
9:46
Exactly. The aim has to culminate in the
9:48
Gospel. It involves presenting the full
9:50
gospel message. First Corinthians 15 puts it so
9:52
clearly. Christ died for our sins,
9:54
according to scriptures. He was buried and he rose again
9:57
on the third day, according to the Scriptures.
9:58
And that gospel message itself has apologetic power.
10:02
It really does. That phrase, according to the
10:04
Scriptures, points right back to Old Testament prophecies
10:07
defending Christ's messiahship, showing God's plan unfolding,
10:11
and the resurrection itself is presented as powerful evidence
10:14
of God accepting Christ's sacrifice and his victory over
10:17
death. Now, part of presenting that
10:20
full gospel accurately in this view involves talking about the
10:24
reality of divine judgement and hell.
10:28
That's a tough one for many people.
10:30
It is, and it's not about manipulating people through
10:32
fear. It's about honestly conveying
10:34
the biblical truth that humanity is condemned apart from
10:37
repentance and faith in Christ. It underlines the seriousness of
10:41
our situation. The goal of salvation isn't just
10:44
avoiding hell. It's about worshipping Jesus
10:46
Christ, seeking eternity with our Savior, submitting to His
10:49
Lordship. So the motivation is positive
10:51
relationship with Christ even while acknowledging the negative
10:54
consequences of rejection. Precisely.
10:57
And apologetics has sort of a dual audience here.
11:00
For unbelievers, the aim is partly to expose the well, the
11:05
foolishness of rejecting God, to show the bankruptcy of their own
11:08
worldview. When it's examined closely, it
11:10
helps clear the ground for them to consider Christ.
11:13
But for believers, apologetics serves to confirm the truth of
11:16
their faith. If the Bible is true, then
11:19
reality should align with it, right?
11:20
That strengthens their own conviction and it equips them,
11:23
especially leaders, to defend the flock from error,
11:27
philosophical attacks, atheism, false doctrines, just like Titus
11:30
19 talks about. Holding fast to the trustworthy
11:33
word. Exactly.
11:34
But ultimately, the aim is never just winning debates, because
11:37
real, lasting heart change. That's the Holy Spirit's job.
11:40
That distinction is huge, isn't it, between intellectual
11:43
agreement and genuine Christ centered transformation.
11:46
It perfectly sets up that third a agency.
11:49
It really pushes back against the idea that apologetics is
11:52
just about having the cleverest arguments.
11:54
So if our best arguments alone don't actually compel true
11:57
change, what is the ultimate agent of that heart
12:01
transformation? And how does knowing that shape
12:04
how we approach apologetics? Yeah, this is critical, and it
12:08
really grounds the whole approach.
12:10
The exclusive agent of change in the human heart is the Holy
12:14
Spirit. Full stop.
12:15
An apologist, even with the most brilliant presentation and solid
12:19
evidence, can at best win an intellectual argument, maybe
12:23
even silence someone. But genuine heart
12:25
transformation, you know, bringing spiritual light where
12:28
there was darkness, bringing spiritual life where there was
12:31
death, That is solely the work of the holy.
12:33
Spirit. It's supernatural.
12:34
It's entirely supernatural, it's not a result of human persuasion
12:37
or clever techniques, and the author's pretty critical of
12:40
other apologetic approaches that might, you know, say they
12:43
believe in the Holy Spirit's work.
12:44
Give Idlib service. Give Idlib service.
12:46
But then in practice they act as if conversion really depends on
12:50
them and how well they argue. Like if they just construct the
12:52
perfect logical case, belief will automatically follow.
12:56
Right, putting the pressure on the human apologist.
12:58
Right. So the apologist role then is
13:01
primarily to be faithful with the message, present God's truth
13:04
clearly, consistently. And since the lines of evidence
13:08
in the author's book are drawn from Scripture and includes
13:10
Scriptural support, the conviction is that the Holy
13:13
Spirit can and does use these biblically grounded evidences to
13:17
convict hearts and bring about change.
13:19
Because the Spirit works through the Word.
13:22
Precisely as Isaiah 55.1 says, God's word doesn't return empty.
13:27
It accomplishes His purpose. That gives the apologist
13:31
confidence, knowing their work and sharing God's truth isn't
13:34
wasted, even if they don't see immediate results.
13:36
That's encouraging. It really is, and there's a
13:39
classic story the author uses to illustrate this about an old
13:42
evangelist named John Wickham. OK.
13:44
Wickham met this skeptic who was completely hung up on the story
13:48
of Jonah, and the great fish just couldn't get past it.
13:51
It was his big roadblock to believing the Bible.
13:53
I've met people like that, fixated on one specific thing.
13:56
Exactly. Now most apologists faced with
13:58
that might jump into defending the historical possibility or
14:02
scientific plausibility, maybe citing fish types or whatever.
14:05
Right, try to solve the specific problem.
14:07
But Wickham, understanding it's the Spirit who changes hearts,
14:11
did something different. Instead of getting bogged down
14:14
arguing about Jonah, he simply preached the gospel to the man.
14:17
Christ's death, burial, resurrection.
14:20
Just the core message. Just the core message and the
14:23
Holy Spirit worked. The man was converted later.
14:26
Wickham, curious, asked him, So do you still want to talk about
14:30
Jonah? And the man basically said no,
14:33
it's not an issue anymore. I believe the Bible now.
14:35
Wow. That's powerful, isn't it?
14:38
It shows that trying to logically prove every single
14:40
miracle to someone's satisfaction isn't ultimately
14:43
how hearts are changed. That's the Holy Spirit's work,
14:45
using the faithful proclamation of God's Word.
14:48
That Jonah's story really hits home the Spirit's essential
14:51
role. Which makes me wonder then, how
14:53
does an approach that's so reliant on the Spirit still use
14:56
rational arguments and evidence? Especially given the author's
14:59
own struggle with evidentialism, it sounds like a unique blend.
15:02
It is a unique blend, and that's exactly where his book Reasons
15:06
We Believe tries to land. It's his practical answer to
15:10
that tension, what he jokingly calls his weird hybrid.
15:13
His weird hybrid. I like that, yeah.
15:15
And it's not just an intellectual exercise for him.
15:18
It's his answer to a real tension many apologists feel.
15:22
How do you stay totally faithful to biblical authority but still
15:26
engage with the genuine questions and evidence people
15:29
bring up today? He's not just throwing
15:31
ingredients together, he's suggesting a synthesis where
15:34
scripture isn't just the starting point, it's the lens
15:37
through which all other evidence is correctly understood.
15:40
So Scripture interprets the evidence, not the other way.
15:43
Around exactly it aims for a really cohesive approach, trying
15:46
to avoid the pitfalls of either extreme pure presuppositional
15:49
ISM that might seem dismissive of questions, or pure
15:52
evidentialism that might accidentally undermine
15:55
Scripture's authority. OK, so how does this weird
15:58
hybrid actually work in practice?
16:00
The core idea is this. If a line of reasoning, an
16:04
argument and evidence is actually given in Scripture
16:07
itself, then we have, as he puts it, presuppositional authority
16:12
to use that line of evidence. OK, like the examples you gave
16:15
earlier, cosmological, teleological.
16:17
Precisely so. The defense has to start with
16:21
and stem from the Bible. All 50 lines of evidence in his
16:24
book are first derived from Scripture, because if God uses
16:28
certain arguments in his own word, then Christians are on
16:31
solid ground using those same arguments.
16:33
The whole apologetic needs to be defensible from the Word of God.
16:36
Right. Maintaining that biblical
16:37
foundation always. But then, once that scriptural
16:40
basis is laid, the book brings in confirmatory extra biblical
16:44
evidence from history, philosophy, science, reason,
16:47
experience. So that's where the external
16:50
stuff comes in. Yes, but notice the order and
16:52
the role. It's confirmatory.
16:54
It's secondary testimony. It doesn't establish the truth.
16:56
It shows that the truth established by Scripture is
16:59
actually borne out in reality. OK, so using your earlier
17:01
example, Scripture says God created science.
17:04
Showing fine tuning confirms that, but doesn't prove it
17:06
independently. Exactly.
17:08
And he contrasts this sharply with what he sees in some
17:12
typical evidentialist approaches.
17:14
They might start with say The Big Bang theory or philosophical
17:17
arguments for a first Cause and then say see this fits with the
17:21
God of the Bible. He views that as subtly
17:23
undermining scriptures authority, making it seem like
17:26
God's word needs science or philosophy to validate.
17:29
At first he uses the DNA example instead of starting with DNA's
17:34
complexity and saying wow, this suggests a designer maybe like
17:38
the God in Genesis. Which is a common approach.
17:40
Very common, he says no story of Genesis one.
17:43
Look, there is a God. He revealed himself as Creator
17:46
in his Word, then you can say. And isn't it amazing that modern
17:49
science studying DNA has found this incredibly complex
17:52
information system that perfectly confirms what the
17:54
Bible told us about God's intricate design thousands of
17:57
years ago? The order matters.
17:59
Scripture leads. Evidence follows and confirms.
18:02
That's the crux of his hybrid. And it's interesting.
18:04
He actually got endorsements for his book from both Doctor Gary
18:08
Habermost The Evidential List, Yeah, and Doctor John Fram, the
18:10
presuppositionalist. And these two guys had famously
18:13
debated each other years before. He thought that was pretty
18:16
funny, actually. That is kind of funny.
18:18
A validation of the hybrid maybe?
18:19
He certainly took it that way, yeah.
18:21
But on the other hand, he approached Dr. Norm Geisler, a
18:25
major figure in classical apologetics.
18:27
Oh, OK. And Geisler decided not to
18:29
endorse it. He apparently told the author
18:31
flat out that his approach was confused because it tried to
18:34
merge what Geisler saw as mutually exclusive schools of
18:38
thought. Because classical apologetics
18:40
often argues you need reason and evidence first to establish
18:44
God's existence before you even get to the Bible.
18:47
Exactly. Geisler would likely argue that
18:49
mixing that with a presuppositional starting point
18:51
just doesn't work logically. But the author, while respecting
18:55
Geisler enormously, calls him his evidentialist non
18:58
Calvinistic hero, stuck to his guns on his weird hybrid,
19:02
believing it actually reflects how the Bible itself uses
19:04
evidence. That really clarifies his
19:06
specific stance. It's definitely distinct.
19:08
So given this approach, what specific areas of Christian
19:13
belief does the book Reasons We Believe actually cover with
19:17
these biblically derived reality confirmed evidences?
19:21
How does it layout these 50 lines?
19:23
Yeah, the book is structured pretty clearly into 5 main
19:25
sections, and each section has 10 distinct lines of evidence,
19:29
giving you that total of 50. It makes it quite accessible
19:32
like a handbook. OK, 5 sections, 10 reasons each,
19:35
right? The first section is Reasons we
19:37
believe in God. This covers arguments for God's
19:40
existence and the fact that we can know him starting with his
19:43
self. Revelation, like in Hebrews one
19:45
include lines of evidence like the cosmological argument about
19:48
you know the universe exists so it needs a creator.
19:50
Drawing on Genesis 1, Romans one, Acts 17, it lays out how
19:53
something existing rather than nothing points to an uncaused
19:56
first 'cause which the Bible identifies as God.
19:59
Then there's the teleological argument, the argument from
20:02
design. Again, drawing from Romans 1,
20:04
the intricate design and everything from cells to
20:07
galaxies points to an intent. Intelligent designer.
20:10
It talks about God as sustainer, holding everything together like
20:13
Colossians. One says the moral law argument,
20:17
that universal sense of right and wrong, points to a law
20:20
giver. Right, things we discussed
20:21
earlier. Exactly.
20:22
It also touches on things like the sense of eternity CS Lewis
20:25
talked about from Ecclesiastes 3.
20:27
That longing in human wants, the meaninglessness of life without
20:31
God, is a foundation for truth and purpose, Evidence from God's
20:34
plan seen in history and fulfilled prophecy like an
20:37
Isaiah, how miracles confirm God's power, thinking back to
20:41
the Exodus events described in Deuteronomy.
20:43
And finally, it looks at the inadequacy of other belief
20:45
systems to really explain reality coherently.
20:49
So that's Section 1. Wow, that's a lot.
20:51
Just in the first section. It is, yeah.
20:53
Section 2 then focuses on reasons we believe the Bible is
20:57
God's word, arguments for its inspiration, reliability,
21:00
authority. Section 3 is reasons we believe
21:04
the New Testament Gospels are historical.
21:07
He sees this is crucial for countering those liberal
21:09
arguments, trying to separate the Jesus of history from the
21:13
Christ of faith. Establishing the Gospels.
21:15
Reliability. Right, emphasizing eyewitness
21:17
accounts, early dating, things like that.
21:20
Second four is reasons we believe that Jesus Christ is the
21:23
Messiah, the Son of God, and the Savior of the world.
21:26
This brings in things like the stunning fulfillment of Old
21:29
Testament prophecies. He mentions over 42 specific
21:32
ones and also Christ's own actions demonstrating divine
21:35
authority, His teaching, commanding demons, claiming
21:39
authority over tradition, accepting worship, things only
21:42
God could do. Powerful stuff.
21:44
And finally, Section 5 covers reasons we believe in the
21:46
resurrection, laying out the historical and scriptural case
21:49
for Jesus being raised from the dead.
21:51
The whole book is about 250 pages, so each line of evidence
21:53
gets maybe 3 or 4 pages. It's designed to be concise,
21:57
packed with biblical data, a practical tool.
21:59
That sounds incredibly useful, a real resource.
22:02
So having this framework and the specific lines of evidence, how
22:07
does this presuppositional approach then guide us in
22:11
actually using them? How do we tailor our arguments
22:14
for different people? You know, the hardened skeptic
22:17
versus someone genuinely seeking but maybe with 0 biblical
22:20
background. That's a really practical
22:23
question, and adaptation is key here.
22:25
The core arguments don't change because they're derived from
22:28
scripture, which is constant, but how you present them where
22:32
you start definitely needs to be tailored to your audience.
22:35
OK, so assess who you're talking to 1st.
22:37
Absolutely. If you're talking to someone
22:39
with the background of the Bible, may be familiar with
22:40
Jewish thought, think of Paul talking to King Agrippa in Acts
22:43
26. You can appeal more directly to
22:46
scripture, use more Old Testament arguments.
22:48
Right off the bat. Paul knew Agrippa knew the
22:50
prophets, so he could leverage that.
22:52
Right, shared background. But if you're talking to someone
22:55
with basically 0 biblical understanding like Paul and Mars
22:58
Hill and Acts 17 talking to Greek philosophers, you probably
23:02
need to start farther back as the author puts it.
23:05
Laying more groundwork. Exactly.
23:07
Establish foundational truths first.
23:10
There is a creator God. He sustains everything.
23:13
He's the ultimate judge. Paul didn't quote Old Testament
23:15
scripture directly there, did he?
23:17
But his arguments about the Creator, about idols being
23:20
foolish, about God appointed day of judgement, those were all
23:23
inherently biblical arguments drawing on truths from Genesis,
23:27
Isaiah, Romans 1 and 2. He even used a cultural
23:30
connection point that altered to the unknown God to build a
23:33
bridge. Meeting them where they were
23:35
precisely and obviously talking to, say, a devout Roman Catholic
23:39
is going to be different than talking to a committed atheist
23:42
because they're underlying assumptions about authority,
23:45
tradition, and truth are completely different.
23:47
You have to understand their starting point to engage
23:49
effectively. Makes sense.
23:51
You need to diagnose before you prescribe, so to speak.
23:54
That's a good way to put it. And the Bible itself models this
23:56
kind of adaptation. Look at Jesus himself in John
23:59
chapter 5. When the Jewish leaders
24:01
challenged his authority, he didn't just say trust me.
24:04
He appealed to multiple lines of evidence, multiple witnesses
24:07
tailored to their framework. Oh yeah, How so?
24:10
Well, first he pointed to John the Baptist, some of the
24:13
acknowledged as a prophet, saying John bore witness to him.
24:17
Then he pointed to his own miracles.
24:19
The works I am doing bear witness about me.
24:22
Then he appealed to the Father's testimony, though perhaps less
24:26
directly perceivable by them. And then, crucially, he appealed
24:30
directly to Scripture, which they claim to uphold.
24:32
He told them, you search the Scriptures.
24:35
It is these that testify about me.
24:37
And even more pointedly, if you believe Moses, you would believe
24:40
me, for he wrote about me. Wow, he used John, Miracles, the
24:44
Father and Moses scripture. Exactly.
24:46
And those are essentially presuppositional evidences in
24:49
this framework because they're grounded in authorities.
24:51
They should have recognized a prophet, supernatural works, and
24:53
especially the Old Testament Scriptures.
24:55
It shows Jesus himself adapting his defense based on his
24:58
audience while staying firmly rooted in God's revealed truth.
25:02
That's a fantastic example. It really seems crucial then to
25:05
stay biblical but also be flexible in our approach.
25:09
So thinking about this framework, what are some common
25:12
mistakes or maybe incorrect uses of apologetics that this
25:16
structured approach helps us steer clear of?
25:19
What are the dangers if we kind of drift away from these 3A's?
25:24
Yeah, there are definitely some common pitfalls that this
25:26
framework helps us identify and hopefully avoid.
25:29
They're pretty important for keeping our apologetics faithful
25:32
and effective. OK, like what?
25:34
Well, one huge one is stopping short of the gospel meaning
25:37
meaning you might succeed in convincing someone that OK,
25:40
maybe there is a God general theism, or maybe you wouldn't
25:45
argument about the age of the earth like young earth
25:47
creationism. And those conversations might be
25:50
helpful steps. Right, removing an obstacle.
25:52
But if that's where it ends, your apologetic effort has
25:55
fallen short. The ultimate goal isn't just
25:58
intellectual agreement. On some points, it's leading
26:00
people to embrace the person and work of Jesus Christ for
26:03
salvation. If someone accepts theism but
26:06
doesn't repent and trust in Christ, they're still lost.
26:09
The danger is celebrating a small intellectual win while
26:12
missing the ultimate spiritual aim.
26:15
That's a sobering reminder. OK, what else?
26:17
Another one the author is quite critical of is letting
26:19
apologetics get hijacked by political agendas.
26:22
He. Puts it pretty bluntly,
26:24
actually, critiquing the idea that, quote, our job as
26:27
Christians is to go and make Republicans.
26:30
He sees this as fundamentally unbiblical and a massive
26:33
distraction from the gospel. So prioritizing political
26:36
alignment over actual conversion.
26:37
Exactly. He expresses real frustration
26:39
when he sees political conservatism seemingly
26:42
prioritized over preaching salvation through faith alone in
26:45
Jesus Christ, maybe even watering down the gospel message
26:49
to keep political allies happy. The church's primary mission, he
26:52
argues, is proclaiming Christ and making disciples, not
26:56
achieving specific political outcomes.
26:58
OK, that's a clear warning. What's another pitfall?
27:00
Presenting an incomplete gospel, specifically by downplaying or
27:05
omitting the reality of hell in divine judgment.
27:08
Which is tempting because it's uncomfortable.
27:10
It absolutely is, but the author argues that affirming the
27:13
reality of hell, the horror of eternal judgment, is actually
27:17
necessary for an accurate presentation of the gospel
27:20
stakes. However, he immediately adds a
27:23
strong caution against using it as a manipulative tool, warning
27:28
against cultural manipulation that results in false
27:30
conversions where people just want to avoid hell but don't
27:34
actually want to submit to Christ's lordship.
27:37
The gospel has to be balanced. It's not just about getting your
27:40
Get out of Hell free card. It's fundamentally about turning
27:43
from sin to worship Jesus Christ, submitting your life to
27:46
Him as Lord and Savior. So truthfulness about judgment,
27:49
but aimed at genuine repentance and worship, not just fear based
27:53
dissent. Precisely.
27:55
Then there's the danger of pursuing intellectual victory
27:57
without conversion like. Winning the debate, but losing
28:00
the person. Exactly.
28:02
He mentions arguments like Van Till's transcendental argument
28:05
which can be incredibly powerful at showing the internal
28:08
contradictions of non Christian worldviews.
28:11
It can demonstrate how things like logic, morality, even
28:15
science don't really make sense unless you presuppose a
28:18
Christian framework. It can intellectually shatter
28:21
someone's worldview. Sounds effective.
28:23
Intellectually, yes, but even completely dismantling someone's
28:27
worldview won't force them to become attrition.
28:30
That ultimate change, that regeneration, still requires the
28:34
Holy Spirit working through the Word.
28:36
So the goal can't just be to win the argument, leave the other
28:39
person speechless. It has to be aimed at winning
28:41
the soul, always remembering the Spirit is the agent of change.
28:45
Right, the argument clears the ground, but the spirit builds
28:48
the house. That's a great way to put it.
28:50
And finally, related to the authority principle, this
28:53
framework helps us avoid using unbiblical evidences.
28:56
Like what kind of evidence would be considered unbiblical?
28:58
The main example he gives is Pascal's Wager.
29:01
The idea that it's a better bet to believe in God than not, just
29:04
in case he exists. Right. believe in God.
29:08
If he exists, infinite reward, if not finite loss.
29:12
Don't believe. If he exists, infinite loss, if
29:14
not, finite gain. So pragmatically, belief looks
29:18
like the better wager. The author rejects this because
29:22
he just doesn't see any biblical precedent for that kind of
29:24
argument. It's based on self-interest and
29:26
probability, not revelation or conviction.
29:29
Exactly. He sees it as an unbiblical way
29:31
to think because the Bible calls for genuine faith, repentance,
29:35
love for God, not a calculated risk assessment based on
29:39
potential personal gain or loss. The motivation is wrong, even if
29:43
the conclusion belief might seem right.
29:46
OK, that makes sense within the framework.
29:48
Avoid arguments God himself doesn't seem to use in
29:50
scriptures scripture. That's the idea, yeah.
29:52
Stick to biblically grounded reasoning.
29:54
Wow, what a fascinating deep dive into presuppositional
29:58
apologetics and how it plays out practically.
30:00
We've really covered a lot how our defense of the faith finds
30:03
its ultimate authority in God in His Word, how its aim is always
30:06
focused on bringing people to the person and work of Jesus
30:09
Christ crucial, and how we must rely on the Holy Spirit as the
30:12
sole agent of true heart change. And we also saw how evidences
30:17
can be used powerfully, but when they're derived from Scripture
30:21
and confirmed by reality, adapting to our audience while
30:25
steering clear of those common pitfalls that can really
30:28
undermine the gospel. It definitely feels like
30:30
understanding this framework better equips us for those
30:33
conversations about faith. It really does.
30:36
And if we just zoom out for a second, connect this to the
30:37
bigger picture. What really stands out to me
30:40
from everything we've discussed is that foundational point from
30:43
Proverbs. The fear of the Lord is the
30:45
beginning of knowledge. Right back to the starting
30:48
point. Exactly.
30:49
For all our arguments, all our evidence, all our efforts,
30:52
that's the true starting point for any genuine understanding.
30:55
It's not just an abstract idea. It's this posture of
30:59
recognition, reverence for our Creator, and a humble submission
31:03
to His authoritative word. A fundamental orientation of the
31:06
heart and mind, yes. And that race is, I think, a
31:08
really important question for you, the listener, to ponder.
31:11
How does recognizing that the fear of the Lord truly is the
31:14
beginning of all knowledge impact how you approach things?
31:18
Not just apologetics, but really every area of your own search
31:21
for truth? How does it change how you read,
31:23
how you learn, how you think? It's definitely something worth
31:26
considering to continue to learn and grow, reflecting on what the
31:29
real foundation of all understanding truly is.