A recent question from a reader of mine sparked the idea that it may be time to bring up the issue of apologetics methodology again…
Here is something insightful that my friend Jonathan had to say:
I see then the value of tearing down false authorities which compete with God’s Word—it is fairly simple to show that, taken in isolation, human logic & evidence-based methods are inadequate as means of judging the truth of God & His Word. If I’m not mistaken, the real challenge which confronts the unbeliever is not a lack of information, but a lack of righteousness (as Voddie Baucham likes to say). The unbeliever needs to recognize his sinful rebellion against the Creator and submit to God’s authority. Only when he admits that he’s living in God’s world will his mind be properly oriented to examine the evidence. That much is clear to me, but it’s difficult to share that with an unsaved coworker, for instance. “Repent, or we can’t properly talk about evidence” doesn’t strike me as an easy way to build bridges. It certainly doesn’t have the same appeal as the evidentialist’s mantra “let’s examine the evidence together, and see what conclusions we can draw.”
I want to make some comments about his thoughts here and describe my approach to presuppositional apologetics.
Here is just some of what we discuss in the episode:
- Biblically, one’s standing with God is always at issue—not whether or not the evidence is supportive of a given claim.
- Why can’t the Bible itself count as evidence?
- Claims of the Bible must be considered when discussing a biblical proposition.
Take a listen here: http://steveschramm.com/my-approach-to-apologetics/
Enduring Together,
Steve
