Creation is Proof

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about truth and the fact that we can know full well that our faith is true. This is not a new or revolutionary idea; this was the general consensus of the church for a very long time. St. Thomas Aquinas is widely known for his advocacy of natural theology, or the idea that we can know God through nature and reason. It was only more recently that the church generally abandoned this view in favor of saying, "We can't know, it's all just blind faith." I don't know for sure, but I personally believe this is because the church wound up being influenced by skeptics who said the same thing.

Aquinas' view that man can, and does, know God through nature wasn't really new when he espoused the idea either. In fact, this idea goes all the way back to the Apostle Paul:

[W]hat can be known about God is plain to [men], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. (Rom. 1:19, 20 ESV)

In other words, we can be certain of our faith because of the world around us. We can look at trees, rocks, and birds and be reminded of the ultimate Cause of their existence. In fact, R.C. Sproul puts it this way: because his shoes exist, God exists. His argument is that, if there ever was a time when absolutely nothing existed, not even God, there would still be nothing, because nothing cannot create anything. Therefore, if anything exists, then something has to have always existed.

From there there is the argument from design; the world, one could argue, displays far too much intentional design to have been created randomly. We happen to be on a planet that is perfect for supporting our existence. We have water and food, we have the means to replenish all of our essential nutrients so we don't die. These nutrients can be found easily in parts of nature that are not human, such as in fruits and vegetables; in other words, it's almost as if food was made specifically to for us to consume and replenish nutrients with. Nature, for the most part, cooperates with itself; bees taken pollen from flowers and pollinate other plants, and without this process plants would die. Our world is far too orderly for us to reasonably say it was created randomly!

So if this is true, if we can know God through creation, why doesn't everyone know the Gospel? Well, as Aquinas put it, natural revelation, though true, is incomplete and indirect. In the Bible, God reveals everything he wants us to know directly, in clear terms. In nature, however, God reveals himself indirectly, and nature does not tell us of the Gospel. On the other hand, the Bible tells us nothing about photosynthesis. However, natural revelation is still true, and should still cause all people to fall on their faces in worship.

To tie this to the older post about truth, I'll point out that Paul says this clearly and with absolute certainty. In other words, the created order is not merely evidence of God's existence, but proof of it. In fact, he finishes verse 20 with this statement: "They are without excuse." In context, he is talking about the unrighteous and ungodly who refuse to acknowledge God's existence and lordship. But because they have seen the proof in creation and have chosen to ignore it, they have no excuse to do such a thing. There is no reason we should not all worship God every time we step outside and behold creation, or even every time we wake up to a new day.

So if this is all so clear, why doesn't everyone believe? Why doesn't everyone worship God and pray to him and ask for his mercy? Well, this post is getting pretty long, so I'll talk about that in a later post. But for now, remember that faith is based in truth. Whenever you look at nature, whenever you see existence surrounding you, remember that there is a God who created it, and remember that creation is proof.

Scripture's Claims About Itself

Recently I started listening to Handout Apologetics, a short series by the late Dr. John Gerstner about, well, apologetics. In this series, much like he did throughout his life, Gerstner advocates for the classical method of apologetics, which involves attempting to prove God's existence as opposed to merely positing it. This involves proving the reliability and inspiration of Scripture, arguing for how there cannot possibly not be a God, proving that Jesus is the Son of God, etc. In Gerstner's own words, "You don't have an excuse not to believe" (which is quite Pauline; see Rom. 1:20).

If you've been keeping up with the blog this month, you probably realize that I agree with Dr. Gerstner. I need to finish his teaching series before I can really argue for myself, but based on the fact that God is the God of truth, and all truth is God's truth, I see no reason why any truth wouldn't point to God.

However, there is one argument that Gerstner makes that I'm personally unsure of. I don't remember the exact quotations, but he argues that, just because the Bible says it is the Word of God, it does not prove that it is. He argues for this by pointing out that other holy books make the same claim. He says that the only thing the Bible's claim proves is the fact that it claims to be the Word of God.

Now, from a purely logical standpoint, I agree completely. Something making a claim for itself doesn't actually prove anything; it just claims it. I could say I'm a dog; that doesn't make it true.

I guess my question is this: if the Bible really is the genuine Word of God, shouldn't that claim be good enough? The Bible says that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17 ESV). It also says that God "has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills" (Rom. 9:18). God said to Isaiah: "My word...shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (ch. 55:11). All these verses add up to this fact: God's Word will always accomplish exactly what he plans for it to accomplish in the hearts of everyone who hears it, whether it means it saves them or hardens them. So it seems to me that, at least for the purposes of evangelism, pointing to the claims of the Bible should be good enough, or at least where we start.

I'm not saying we shouldn't argue for the validity and inspiration of Scripture; I've benefited greatly from the testimonies of those who have studied the historical and scientific evidence and thought about it from a logical, philosophical standpoint. But I see no reason why, if the Bible is the true Word of God, its claims to be so should not be enough on their own. I think that, to the one who sees no reason why this should be valid proof, we can present evidence and argue for it. But I would think that, at least to some of God's elect who haven't yet been saved, this would be enough. They would hear their shepherd's voice and follow him (John 10:27). God's call will always accomplish exactly what it sets out to do, historical evidence or otherwise.

Truth, God, and So Forth

On Saturday I was talking with a co-worker of mine about a book I was reading called Does God Exist?: The Debate Between Theists and Atheists. In that discussion I told him that I had a lot of interest in reasoned defense of faith. Apparently I was telling the truth, because along with that book I've also read Defending Your Faith by R.C. Sproul and Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, both of which give such defenses. A few years back I also listened to the audiobook version of The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and read More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell. So apparently I've had an interest in this kind of thing for a while.

As a result, I firmly reject fideism, which is basically a "blind leap of faith" kind of view of Christianity (or any religion, really) that would say that everything in terms of belief must be taken on faith and faith alone. This worldview rejects reason or science or logic, calling such things "worldly" and seeing them as the enemies of Christianity. This is the main view of Christianity in the eyes of most American non-Christians, but shockingly a lot of Christians hold this view as well. But such things should not be.

Let's take a quick look at how the Bible defines faith: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). I'm also going to give the verse in two other versions:

• Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen. (HCSB)
• Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (NIV1984)

Look at those words: "assurance," "conviction," "reality," "proof," "sure," "certain." The Greek words mean "assurance" and "proof" respectively, but my point is this: faith is not simply "Oh, I hope this is true." Faith is rooted in fact. Faith is rooted in the truth. Faith is what we know. Yes, Hebrews 11:1 uses the word "hope," but hope doesn't necessarily equal uncertainty. Hope is what we want to happen in the future. We want to be saved. We want Jesus to reign over the earth and remake creation. What I'm arguing is that we can not only want that to happen, not merely hope it will happen with some degree of uncertainty, but rather be sure that what we hope for will in fact happen. As I said, faith is rooted in fact and truth.

So, what I don't understand is how any Christian can say that science and reason are the enemies of faith. If, in fact, our faith is rooted in fact and truth - if our God is the God of all truth - how can any truth from any discipline contradict it? Truth never contradicts truth. If any statement contradicts truth, that statement is not true. As Augustine once said, "Let every good and true Christian understand that wherever truth may be found, it belongs to his Master."¹

Thus, if Christianity is true, and if it is to be believed, then ultimately truth, no matter where it comes from, will not contradict what God's Word has to say. God created all things. God does not and cannot contradict himself. If Christianity is true, all true reason and science and philosophy and logic and math will not contradict God's Word and are not its enemies; they are its allies. We have to be careful because a lot of disciplines make claims to truth that are ultimately false, but any real truth will not undermine faith. In fact, it should strengthen it. We should see that it points to the Creator of all truth.

Footnotes

¹Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 18. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.xix_1.html

DYF: Logical Positivism and Its Ghosts Today: Analogical Use of Language - My Thoughts

This chapter is the last chapter about the four principles of knowledge. Here we study the analogical use of language and its necessity in understanding God.

This chapter has a lot of historical information that I won't get into. The main point of it all is that there were theologians who, in trying to counter the ideas of pantheism (God is all things and all things are God), argued that God was absolutely and completely "other," totally separate from our universe. Indeed it's true that He is separate, but this caused a crisis: if God is completely separate, then we can't know or say anything about Him because there are no similarities between Him and us. There is nothing we can do to understand Him because He is absolutely different from His creation.

Well, Biblically, that's not true. In Genesis 1:26 we read that "God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.'" We are made in the image of God! We can talk about God because there is similarity between us and Him. Indeed, there is some degree of similarity between God and His created order; as Sproul said in his teaching series Recovering the Beauty of the Arts: since God is the ultimate source of goodness, truth, and beauty, then everything good, true, and beautiful displays some aspect of the glory of God.

The idea of analogical language seems to have come from a man named Thomas Aquinas. He differentiated between univocal language (two uses of a word mean the exact same thing), equivocal language (two uses of a word mean two completely different things), and analogical language (two uses of a word are similar but not the exact same). Analogical language is a middle ground of sorts. When we say "This coffee smells good" and "God is good," we are being analogical. The coffee may smell good, but God is exceedingly better. But some of His goodness is reflected in the smell of that coffee. When we say "God is omnipotent (all-powerful)," we must draw an analogy because we have never seen omnipotence. But we can look at someone with power or at our own exertions of power and draw an inference of what omnipotence means.

This chapter didn't seem to be arguing so much for the use of analogical language in general so much as it was arguing for its use in describing and talking about God, but I can't see a Biblical warrant for not using such language. Actually, it seems completely necessary. And if we are talking about the God of the Bible, we already know that He is somewhat similar to His creation. I guess then we'd have to prove the validity of the Bible. But we'll get to that.

DYF: Hume's Critique of Causality and the Basic Reliability of Sense Perception - My Thoughts

Phew! That post title is a doozy!

Despite its long title, the chapter actually turned out to be a fairly simple one. As the title indicates, Sproul talks about David Hume's critique of causality and the basic reliability of sense perception. Although it originally sounded like it was going to be about two different topics, it was actually about two connected topics: the reliability of the five senses.

Hume made a critique about causality that, apparently like most arguments that philosophers made, wound up being very misunderstood. A lot of people held and still hold that Hume argued against causality in general, and believe that he disproved and demolished it. But actually, he didn't so much argue against causality as he did against sense perception.

Hume argued that, while effects do have causes, we cannot truly perceive those causes with our five senses. He said that we only see things and then make assumptions about them. We only assume that it's the rain that makes the grass wet. We only assume that someone punching a guy in the face broke the guy's nose. But our senses aren't truly reliable. They are severely limited and can't tell us what really caused what.

Sproul's argument for the basic reliability of our senses is a lot simpler than I expected. He says, along with Immanuel Kant, that if our senses are unreliable, we can't know anything. If our senses aren't reliable, all of science falls apart because science is about making observations. He doesn't argue that our senses are infallible; they can certainly deceive us. But he argues that they are basically reliable. They must be because they are the only window we have to the physical world. We have to rely on them. Hume is correct in that our senses are limited in what they can perceive. But they are not unreliable.

This is Biblical as well. Sproul cites 2 Peter 1:16-18 as Biblical evidence for the reliability of eyewitness testimony:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.

Notice the wording Peter uses here. "We did not follow cleverly devised myths...we were eyewitnesses of his majesty...we ourselves heard this very voice borne for heaven...we were with him on the mountain." Peter is arguing that he heard and saw the glory of Christ with his own eyes and ears, and that was proof to him that this whole Jesus thing wasn't some kind of crazy made-up story. If his senses were unreliable, then this would mean absolutely nothing. But clearly this has to hold weight for us Christians, because otherwise this passage of Scripture means nothing to us.

So our senses aren't perfect, nor are they absolutely transcendent. But they are reliable. They need to be. We need them to be. Otherwise, how can we know anything about the world around us? How could prophets and apostles know what God spoke to them? How can we know a God who gave us a book through which He communicates with us? If our senses are unreliable, how can we understand this book? How could the apostles and prophets hear God and know what He said? If our senses are unreliable, we couldn't understand the Bible. The apostles and prophets could not have understood God properly. But if our senses are reliable, then we can understand. We can "taste and see that the LORD is good" (Psalm 34:8).

DYF: The Law of Causality - My Thoughts

This chapter introduces the reader to the law of causality, the idea of causes and effects.

Now, before I continue, I have an apology to make. A few posts ago I defined the law of causality as simply everything having a cause. As it turns out, however, that definition is wrong, and I'm sorry I misinformed you. What this law really states is that "Every effect has a cause." This is important, and I'll get to that in a minute. Once again Sproul's basis for this seems to be Aristotle, though I suppose Aristotle is probably a good basis to work off of what it comes to logic, seeing as he defined it.

One very important facet of this idea is that it's true by definition. An effect, by definition, is caused by something; it always has a cause, something or someone that caused it to be. Likewise, a cause, by definition, is something or someone that brings something about. A cause literally causes something, it always results in an effect of some kind. So every effect has a cause, and every cause has an effect. Neither can exist without the other.

Now, the reason this is important is because it gives us a reason why we don't need to say what caused God to exist unless we can define God as an "effect" of something. If God is eternal, then He has always existed, and thus nothing could have caused Him to come into being, thus He is not an effect. How can He be eternal if something brought Him into existence? If that were the case, then whatever brought God into existence is the truly eternal thing, and God is no longer the everlasting God (and thus, not God). So logically, the Biblical account of God's existence - that is, that He has always existed - seems to be a totally valid option.

This law has been historically misunderstood by some people trying to argue that it doesn't exist, or is otherwise not necessary. John Stuart Mill in particular made the same error I did when he argued against it; he believed the law of causality stated that everything had to have a cause. The problem with that, he argued, is that it leads to a never-ending cycle of causes. If something caused the universe to come into being, what caused that something to exist? Then, what caused that something that caused that something to exist? One could continue that cycle for eternity. But since that's not what the law states, one doesn't have to do that. Logic allows for some eternal something or someone.

This leaves open one question, at least in my mind. There are those who argue, or have argued, that the universe has simply always existed. Nothing caused it; it has just always been. So far as I can tell, this law by itself allows for such a thing. But Biblically, that's not what happened. God created the universe. So how does one argue for an eternal God instead? I know this question is answered later in the book, so I look forward to finding out.

DYF: Contradiction, Paradox, and Mystery - My Thoughts

This chapter turned out to be much easier to grasp than the last one, probably because rather than trying to argue a point, the author was merely defining a few terms: contradiction, paradox, and mystery. It's a pretty simple distinction to make, honestly, and an important one.

According to Sproul, the first two words, contradiction and paradox, are commonly used interchangeably. This, he says, is a mistake, as they mean two different things. While our contemporary definition shows them as synonyms, Sproul argues that this is only resulted from general misuse of the terms. He gives the correct, historical definitions for this chapter.

Contradiction

A contradiction is a logical error, something that simply does not make sense and cannot be understood to be meaningful because of its absurdity. This is like saying that the iPad I'm typing both is and isn't an iPad. It's either one or the other; it can't be both. We can't understand how it can possibly be both an iPad and not an iPad at the same time because that's a contradiction. It can't be resolved at all.

Paradox

A paradox is something that, while seeming to be a contradiction at first glance, really isn't a contradiction at all. The best paradox I can think of is one that Sproul uses himself in this chapter: the doctrine of the Trinity.

The doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one God yet three persons. He is both one and three. That sounds like a contradiction, right? Well, on closer inspection we discover it's not. God is one in essence but three in person. He is one in one way and three in a completely different way. This is not a contradiction at all, only a paradox.

Mystery

Finally, there is mystery. A mystery is simply something that is logical, but is not known at the time. It may be that it can't be known or fully understood; God is an infinite being, and we as finite beings can never fully understand Him. However, it may be that a mystery can be known with further investigation and study. Either way, it's something that makes logical sense. That differentiates it from a contradiction, which cannot be known or understood because it makes no logical sense.

So, contradiction, paradox, and mystery. All of them are important things for us to understand if we wish to logically discuss the Gospel, or anything in general. At least Sproul says so. I'm not far into the book, so we haven't got to the part about defending the Gospel yet. I look forward to that.

DYF: The Law of Noncontradiction - My Thoughts

In this chapter, Dr. Sproul begins to talk about the law of noncontradiction, one of the logical rules that must be in place before we can know something. The most important idea is probably the idea of absolute vs. relative truth.

The primary argument for the law of noncontradiction in this chapter is that, without it, we have no way of knowing what is true or false, right or wrong (the moral relativists will love that). In Christianity in particular, without the law of noncontradiction, the entire Bible would be useless to us. If God commands us to do something, we can't disregard it. In the same way, if God commands us not to do something, we can't just go out and do it. That's a Biblical given. But, if the law of noncontradiction didn't exist, who's to say these are absolute commands? How do we know what God's commands are? How do we even know what He is like? Can Jesus have died and not died at the same time? When the Bible says He rose from the grave, could He have not risen from the grave? So we see the law of noncontradiction's necessity to our faith.

Now, the law of contradiction doesn't prove Christianity. All it does is give us a concept of how to think, how to view the world. It gives us a framework for understanding the universe. It's the law that states that I can't be both Sarrah's husband and not be her husband at the same time. To be both would be a clear contradiction. But without the law of noncontradiction, who's to say I can't do that? Or God can't not be God, or not fulfill His attributes. He is an absolute God and a God of absolutes.

This chapter also talks about the problems with relativism (believing something to be true or right for some people and not for others). Sproul also points out that one cannot be a consistent relativist, believing that all truth is relative. For one thing, the idea that all truth is relative (meaning there are no absolutes) is itself an absolute, and the whole idea behind relativism is that it denies absolutes. For it to not be an absolute, one would have to say that only some things are relative, which would mean that some other things are absolute. You see the dilemma? I suppose one could say that there are some relatives and some absolutes. But the fact remains that there are absolutes in our world.

This is also the law that allows us to make certain observations. Sproul gives the example of the phrase "All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal." Logic allows us to add this up and see this to be true. This kind of idea could be applied to a lot of things, like "Heights scare me; the Space Needle is very tall; therefore going on the Space Needle would scare me."

Sproul points out that logic in general wasn't invented by man. When he talks about Aristotle's ideas about logic, he is careful to point out that "Aristotle didn't invent logic; rather he defined it. He argued that logic is a necessary tool for human thinking and communication, as well as a means for us to comprehend the rational structure of the universe." Aristotle did, in fact, affirm the law of noncontradiction in his writing Metaphysics, saying that it is "impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject" (IV.3.8). The reason it is important to note that Aristotle didn't invent logic is because, back in those times (and still today even), there are those that argued that Greek philosophy and what they called "Aristotelian logic" should never be used in conjunction with Christianity. At the time the use of such things was commonly intended to try to prove heresy, and of course it should never be used for that. But why can't logic be used to prove Christianity? Is our faith irrational? Is it based on a blind leap of faith? Some Christians would actually say so. But doesn't the Bible tell us that the one who says there is no God is a fool? (Psalm 14:1, 53:1) Wouldn't the fool be more apt to follow the "irrational" idea that there is a God? By saying Christianity is inherently irrational, we are calling all of the church a bunch of fools! But, Biblically, it is the non-Christians who are foolish, not the Christians.

All in all, this chapter had a lot to absorb. I had to think and re-think about it to grasp it, and that fact means I may not be able to simply write about each chapter every day. There are still three more laws to cover, and this I understand, this one I've always agreed with. So I may be a bit slower in continuing to write about this book, but I'll get it done.

DYF: Introducing the Four Principles - My Thoughts

Now Dr. Sproul introduces what he calls "the four principles of knowledge." What he basically argues is that these four principles are assumed in Scripture, so they are essential to knowledge.

The key seems to be that these four principles need to be shown valid. According to Sproul, the most formidable atheist thinkers have historically argued that at least one of these principles is invalid. Sproul states that if we can show these principles to be valid and essential to knowledge, the atheist will be hard pressed to argue against God without contradicting them, thus falling into irrationality. How can an argument be rational if it denies something required for knowledge of something?

The four principles are:

1. The law of noncontradiction (A cannot be both A and not-A at the same time)
2. The law of causalty (everything has a cause)
3. The basic reliability of sense perception (our senses, while they can deceive us, are generally reliable), and
4. The analogical use of language (while God is separate from us and divine, our human language can make analogies that say meaningful things about Him)

Confused? I am too. The law of contradiction I definitely agree with; I definitely know absolutes exist in this world. Same with the basic reliability of sense perception, although I wonder how this will fit in if God generally can't be seen or heard. It probably has something to do with the eyewitness accounts of the writers of Scripture.

I think the one I'm most interested in is the law of causality. I've heard the argument that everything has a cause many times before. Many Christians say that the universe can't have created itself. But lately I've wondered about a possible atheist counter-argument: what created God? And then if we say He's just always existed (which I wholeheartedly believe), aren't we seemingly contradicting ourselves since there is something (someone) with no cause for existence? I know Sproul talks about this later, so I'm really looking forward to the answer.

Analogical use of language needs some explanation. According to Sproul, there are many thinkers, theologians, and philosophers who have argued that, since God is separate and divine, our human language cannot begin to comprehend Him, so it's impossible to have any meaningful discussion about Him. To that I say "Poppycock," but I don't have a logical reason for saying that. So I'm curious as to Sproul's counter to the argument.

I'm really glad each of these has it's own chapter, because I really need some explanation of these concepts.

DYF: Apologetics and Saving Faith - My Thoughts

Chapter 2 of Defending Your Faith continues along the lines of the purpose of apologetics, specifically laying out its role in leading people to salvation.

As stated in the previous post, apologetics by itself has no ability to save people. However, as Dr. Sproul lays out in this chapter, it does have a role in leading people down the road to salvation.

What's the difference, you ask? As Sproul states:

The thinkers of the sixteenth century distinguished among several actual nuances or levels or elements of faith that together comprise saving faith. The three main levels of faith, they said, were notitia (sometimes called the notei), assensus, and fiducia.

This idea of different levels of faith could also be illustrated by the people in the parable of the sower. A man sows seed (the Word of God). That seed falls on four places: the path, where birds snatch it up; rocky soil, where a plant with a shallow root instantly sprouts but is scorched; among thorns, which choke the plant that tries to grow; and in good soil, where it produces much fruit.

Notitia

Notitia basically means a knowledge of something. This knowledge, while it can lead to saving faith, doesn't always do so. This could be the guy who studies Christianity out of an academic interest, but doesn't really believe any of what he's researching to be true. Maybe there's a god of some kind, this man might say, but certainly not this God.

This man can be represented by the path. The path is a person with a hard heart that Satan snatches the Word out of before it can grow.

Assensus

Assensus is an assent to the truth. This person believes the Word he has heard to be true, but doesn't necessarily respond with saving faith and trust. You can't have this level of faith without the first one, but you can have it without the third one.

In the parable, this could be represented by either the shallow or the thorny soil. The shallow soil is someone who hears the Word and seems to accept it with joy, but falls away from the faith after some kind of trial. The thorny soil is someone who hears and seems to accept, but is caught up in worldly things and ultimately proves unsaved.

I knew a guy who told me he believed in the Christian God and Satan, but wasn't a follower of either. He would fall into this category as well.

Fiducia

Lastly, we have fiducia. Fiducia is personal trust and reliance. It's the response of loving God after hearing the Word (notitia) and accepting it to be true (assensus). Essentially, this is the response of saving faith to the Gospel that comes by the work of the Holy Spirit. and you can't have it without the first two levels of faith.

The good soil represents this person. This person hears the Gospel, accepts, is renewed, and produces fruit.

The task of apologetics is to produce the first two levels of faith, hearing and accepting the Word of God to be true. But it must be noted that the third level of faith - trust, reliance, submission - cannot be brought out by apologetics unless the Holy Spirit changes a person's heart and mind.

In the end, I suppose that's similar to all preaching. Human effort can cause someone to hear the Word, and even lead them to believe it to be true. But only the Holy Spirit can bring them to real, saving faith.

DYF: The Task of Apologetics - My Thoughts

In Chapter 1 of Defending Your Faith, R.C. Sproul argues that it is the Christian's duty to defend the faith. And so it is (1 Peter 3:14-16; Jude 3). But I wonder, how should one do that? Is appealing to logic necessarily the best way to go about it? As Sproul says himself, apologetics by itself has no saving power apart from the Holy Spirit's work in someone's heart. But it does have the power to prove false accusations against Christians and Christianity wrong, which can also build up other Christians who see no logical basis for their faith. It can also lead an unbeliever to Christ...by only if the Holy Spirit intervenes.

Some would argue that, when we defend the faith, we should argue from the perspective that the Bible is true and just assume that it's a given. That's certainly valid in some cases; the Word of God has power to save without our defense.

But what if you are in a debate with someone who doesn't want to believe? Sproul would say, in this case, that we should prove God's existence and the authority of the Bible to this person. Doing so makes the task of apologetics a lot easier, because if you can prove the Bible to be true and God to be real, you can argue Christian truth from the Bible.

But Sproul also points out that, even if you prove the Christian faith true to someone, they may simply be unwilling to be persuaded. People have hard, rebellious hearts. The Bible says that we cannot understand the things of God by ourselves. We can't expect everyone to be saved by an apologetic debate. All we can really do is preach the Gospel, show it to be rational and true, and let God work in the hearts of those He wills.

Writing Through R.C. Sproul's "Defending Your Faith"

On Sunday night I bought Defending Your Faith by R.C. Sproul (hence the title). It's a book about apologetics, something that Dr. Sproul himself is well-known for. For those who don't know, apologetics is basically the practice of making a case to both defend and prove something. In the case of this book, that something is the Christian faith.

In this book, Dr. Sproul is concerned with multiple things:

1. Making a case for the existence of God and the authority of the Bible
2. Showing that Christianity, contrary to popular belief, is based on both faith and reason
3. Teaching the reader how to defend the faith

Before getting this book, I kind of thought it would be fun to blog my through it one chapter at a time. I figure it will help me absorb the information better, and Sproul argues that this book contains very important information. Plus, it would give me more to write about; that way, you, the reader, are kept happy.

So, starting Monday, I'm gonna blog my way through Defending Your Faith. The posts may not all be consecutive, meaning I'll probably still post other things on different topics now and again. And I'm not starting tomorrow because I already have tomorrow's old, dead dude quote queued up.

Speaking of which, does anyone like the old, dead dude quotes? So far the only comment I've heard about them is to stop because that particular reader doesn't want to read quotes; she wants to read what I have to say. So, any thoughts? If no one wants me to continue them, I'll stop.