Craig Gaunt
Christian Faith & Contemporary Worldviews
The Place of Scripture
In the modern times, the Bible has taken a backseat in almost every discussion, even in apologetics. Many Christians either improperly use Scripture or disregard it altogether in trying to live their faith and reach people for Christ. However, the numbers will show that many people in “post-modern” countries still reject the Christian message and Scripture’s authority even though there have been countless texts written on its truthfulness. If Christians are to be affective witnesses in the world today, Scripture must be at the forefront in forming our theologies and worldviews. The Bible was not simply meant to be a historical or philosophical text to have facts drawn from and argued over. Its purpose is to be the revelation of God, our sin, and His redemption through Christ.
Before dealing with the specific truths of Scripture, it will help to look at man’s epistemological condition. The Scriptures testify, and history confirms, that the unbelievers are inherently sinful and biased against God even though God has revealed Himself to them (Ps 14:1-3; Jer.17:9; Rom 1:18-20; 3:12; 8:7).[1] God says that unredeemed humanity futile in its thinking and darkened in its understanding (Eph. 4:17-18).[2] The Bible is clear in its message of sin: mankind’s heart condition is sealed shut against God, and it is not a problem of the intellect but a disease of the moral/personal being that cannot be cured outside of God’s grace.[3] In other words, all unbelievers, even “honest seekers who doubt” are enemies of God because who we are influences our access to truth.[4] Even though God has revealed himself through creation, this general revelation will not save because it does not say how man can be saved.[5] Man does not have the reason or capacity to innately know about the covenant of grace which comes through special revelation in Scripture.[6] A person’s spiritual condition is the determining factor as far as what they will regard as truth, and Christ testifies to this by saying that you cannot separate your mind from your moral being, or heart (Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21).[7] Jesus was sensitive to the moral status of those he preached to because he knew the state of one’s soul influence what truth someone accepted.[8] Thus, assessing humanity’s spiritual condition gives light to understanding why, even in the face of modernity’s god (reason) and post-modernity’s god (pragmatism, pleasure), the gospel is still rejected.
Further on this, today’s common approach to apologetics concerning Scripture is to start trying to use modernity’s historical and logical tools to prove the truthfulness of it. They have a notion, carried over from modernity, that man is an objective being. So, by starting on neutral ground, they try to present the facts logically in an attempt to win their case against the unbeliever.[9] However, this approach costs the Christian in the long run because now they are letting reason, an imperfect judge, determine the criteria for truthfulness.[10] Rather than using Scripture to show the futility of reason in a sinful mind and subjecting reason to the Bible, these apologetics try to meet the rationalist’s criteria for what is truth.[11] A post-modern curtailing of apologetics is not any better because it treats Christianity as nothing more than a therapeutic option rather than the ultimate meta-narrative.[12] Pragmatism never challenges a person’s autonomy to try to live better based on what is the truth.[13]
It is these worldviews that apologetics must use Scripture to challenge. Both modernity and post-modernity gives humans too much credibility because they both say that individuals can determine all that is truth.[14] This runs directly contrary to God’s proclamation as being the ultimate authority and standard, and He also criticizes man’s attempt to discover truth left to his own vices (1 Sam 2:3; Prov. 1:7; Isa. 40:25; Phil 2:11; 2 Cor. 10:5).[15] It has already been established that mankind is by nature sinful and depraved. Hence, left to their own vices to determine truth, people will certainly decide against God’s Word no matter how logical or pragmatic the arguments may be, and they will choose themselves a god made in their image (Deut. 4:28; Phil 3:19).[16]
The question then becomes, if a Christian cannot wind the clock back to a time before modernity yet must not use either modernity’s or post-modernity’s approaches as the foundation for truth, then how do we as Christians use Scripture in apologetics? To use Scripture in apologetics in today’s world means utilizing it to challenge competing sinful worldviews, showing where these competitors fall short. Christians must do what Paul did in Acts 17:16-34 by presenting the Christian worldview in accordance with the Scriptures. Christians proclaim the Scriptural meta-narrative in a world that now rejects the very idea of meta-narrative, even though it typically buys into a Darwinist one. Because the light of Scripture is superior to all other lights (other religions, reason, experience), Scripture must always be the starting point.[17]
Scripture gives history as well as a meta-narrative to interpret it.[18] Phillip Ryken notes that the Bible is God’s meta-narrative and is structure as a story even though it is an anthology and teaches true theology.[19] It tells the story of creation, sin, redemption, and consummation.[20] Critics of these elements are quick to try to point out flaws they see, but they cannot substitute any other explanation that makes coherent sense, like the evolutionary theory. David Wells notes that it is in the presence of an all-powerful God’s story that all of our stories fit together but are also called into question concerning their vain attempts to find truth.[21] These other stories is what Paul challenged in Athens and what we as Christians need to challenge today. There are two similarities between Athens and our post-modern world today, biblical illiteracy and pluralism.[22]
Like Paul, we need to use Scripture to deconstruct worldviews, present our own natural theological arguments as showing sufficiency in explaining humanity, the universe, and God, and present God as the ultimate authority.[23] On Mars Hill, Paul is building on the ontological common ground between himself and his audience that is still valid today: the continuity of nature as well as the religious seeking facilities in the human mind.[24] For Paul, no other explanation would suffice for this except an all-powerful, transcendent God presented in Scripture. He said that God is Creator, God is sovereign, he is self-sustaining, self-defining, and is Lord over all things including salvation.[25] This idea demolished the idea of pantheism in the ancient world because the gods were flawed, depended on humans to satisfy their needs, changed, limited in power, and could not be trusted.[26] This overarching meta-narrative of God has made sense for countless billions of people throughout time.[27]
By using Scripture to not only challenge all other incomplete meta-narratives, but offer the most cohesive, complete method to interpret reality, we have created a door for the skeptic to walk through. However, they still may pose the question about trusting the Bible’s validity and historicity. Norman Geisler comments that thousands of archaeological discoveries, including aspects of Jewish captivities, tombs, temples, references to Assyrian kings, pagan nations, and others have only confirmed what the Old Testament has spoken.[28] Other authors have commented on other such discoveries (see reference).[29] As far as the New Testament is concerned, lack of space prohibits the vast amount of information proving its validity and reliability.
Another key tool for determining Scripture’s validity and accuracy is its prophetic predictions of future events. One example is Daniel’s prophecy of the four kingdoms (Ch. 2, 7) which many biblical scholars see as being fulfilled in the eras of the Babylonian, Medio-Persian, Greek, and Roman empires. The prophet Ezekiel in 588 B.C. spoke against the city of Tyre and proclaimed its destruction (Ezek. 26). Three years after the prophecy Nebuchadnezzar laid waste to the city that had since been abandoned, and Alexander the Great later demolished the island city (where most people had fled during Nebuchadnezzar’s siege) and completely destroyed it in 322 B.C.[30] The most intriguing series of prophecies concern the person of the Messiah, and over three hundred references concerning his coming are present in the Old Testament.[31] They have either already been fulfilled in the New Testament (and extra-biblical evidence confirms this) or the Messiah will fulfill the rest upon the second coming. The mathematical odds that these prophecies could be fulfilled in one man are next to absolute impossibility, yet Christ did fulfill them and history testifies to it.
Still another way to approach the Bible’s historicity is look at Jesus’ resurrection. The only plausible, rational explanation for the empty tomb, Paul’s conversion, Thomas’s change of heart, apostles’ martyrdom, and numerous post-resurrection appearances of Jesus is that he did rise from the dead as he said he would.[32] The Bible, being reliable as historical data, contains the claims of Christ’s resurrection and divinity.[33] The fulfillment of the prophecies shows that Jesus is the only Son of God and is therefore trustworthy. This same Jesus regarded the Old Testament as God’s inspired, infallible, inerrant Word (John 10:35; 17:17).[34] The other New Testament writers, mostly Jews, would have regarded the Old Testament in the same way (2 Tim. 3:15-17).[35] Jesus, by his answers in John 18:37 claimed to embody the truth and be truth’s ultimate arbiter.[36] As far as the New Testament’s validity and reliability, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would ensure that everything God wanted to communicate would be accurately written down, including remembering Jesus’ teachings.[37] If a Christian wants to base their arguments on Scripture’s revelation above everything else for apologetics, then it should be emphasized what Scripture teaches about itself: that it is God’s inspired Word. Without the Holy Spirit, Scripture’s interpretation is incomplete because it is not guided by God.[38]
In response, the skeptic may cite that this argument is too subjective, however, the degree of objectivity can be measured by the amount of agreement it makes among large, diverse groups of people.[39] If this is the approach, then there is more agreement in historical Christianity with regard to the teachings of the creeds drawn directly from Scripture than the modern revisionist and post-modern findings.[40] This approach has already made the verdict that the Bible cannot be divine writings because it contains miracles, promotes a universal moral law, proclaims Christ’s divinity, promotes Christianity’s exclusivity, and explains an afterlife.[41] Modernists and post-modernists reject all these. However, if one does reject all these as well as the Bible’s claims of history, then you have what the skeptic has wanted all along: an ethic.[42] On the contrary, the Bible portrays historical accuracy because Christianity is a historical faith and has roots in a historical person.[43]
Although the gospel is relational in the person of Christ who claims that He is the truth (John 14:6), Christians also need to recognize that Scripture gives laws, poems, philosophy, history, biographies, and letters expounding God’s truth from stories to propositions.[44] A few examples of the propositions in Scripture include Ephesians 1:4; 2:8, and Romans 9:16. The Scriptures testify to the idea of truth as corresponding to reality (Prov. 14:25; John 8:44-45; Acts 24:8, 11; Eph. 4:25).[45] Christians can reason from the Scriptures by way of proposition to unbelievers, and unless the propositions are accepted, human experience makes no sense.[46] Because the Bible is the starting point for the propositions, these can now formulate correct doctrine. Now this approach will be more effective to those of a modernist mentality, but then comes the post-modernists and the best techniques for using the Scripture to reach them.
It is responding to post-modernity that apologetics must take on a more personal approach. Again we look at Paul’s example because he saw the human desire for the divine. It is even safe to say that, even though we are depraved, humans were made to be in communion with God.[47] The main personal tool the Christian utilize is the power of testimony.[48] Testimony answers a problem in post-modernism because it takes the objective, absolute meta-narrative and brings it down to an interpersonal encounter.[49] In a world where post-modernity has taught people to distrust everything, testimony invites trust based on the character of the witness.[50] When we present our testimonies in the framework of the meta-narrative presented in Scripture, we as Christians bear witness to the saving power of God in our lives. God has created us to be in loving fellowship with him, and we are fallen and prone to sin because of our nature, but God has given us his Word and sent his only Son to redeem and save us. We use the Scripture to tell all these elements and then pray that God would convict and lovingly invite all who would listen to be cleansed of sin and partake in the building of the kingdom of God. This will be the Christian practice until He comes again in consummation to judge all people.
Not only do we proclaim the Word of God but we live it in our world today, and this is our most powerful testimony. This is how the apostles proclaimed their faith, not just by their arguments or words but their actions.[51] Their conviction (along with so many others) is proof that God has spoken to humanity and lived among us in the person of Christ, and he is worth of being called God. This God has spoken throughout history in the pages of Scripture.
Truth is God’s Word in story and theology.[52] The story appeals to the post-modernist while theological propositions would make more sense to the modernist. However, it is only when we as Christians build our worldviews and our lives on Scripture does the power of our testimony and lives shine forth to be affective lights of the world.
[1] Whitcomb, John C. “Contemporary Apologetics and the Christian Faith.” Bibliotheca Sacra, issue 134 no. 534 (1977): pg. 104
[2] Kruger, Michael. “The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics.” Master’s Seminary Journal, no. 12 no 1 (2001): pg. 82
[3] Whitcomb, pg. 104
[4] Ibid. 105
[5] Van Til, Cornelius. Christian Apologetics. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2003. pg. 137
[6] Ibid.
[7] Whitcomb, pg. 105
[8] Groothuis, Douglas R. “Why Truth Matters Most: An Apologetic for Truth Seeking in Post-Modern Times.” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society, no. 47 no 3 (2004):, pg. 445
[9] Kruger, pg. 72
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid. Van Til pg. 140
[12] Ibid. pg. 73
[13] Ibid., pg. 75
[14] Ibid., pg. 78
[15] Ibid., pg. 78
[16] Ibid., pg. 79
[17] Til, pg. 65
[18] Ibid., pg. 20
[19] Phillips, Richard ed., Only One Way? Reaffirming the Exclusive Truth Claims of Christianity. Wheaton: Crossway Books. 2006. pg. 99
[20] Ibid., pg. 98
[21] Ibid. pg. 34
[22] Dahle, Lars. “Acts 17:16-34: an Apologetic Model Then and Now?” Tyndale Bulletin, no. 53 no 2 (2002): pg. 315
[23] Ibid., pg. 316
[24] Mayers, Ronald B. “Both/And: The Uncomfortable Apologetic.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, no. 23 no 3 (1980): pg. 236
[25] Phillips, pg. 29-32
[26] Ibid. pg. 30
[27] Pritchard, John. How to Explain your Faith? Collegeville. Liturgical Press. 2006. pg. 100
[28] Strobel, Lee. The Case for Faith. Grand Rapids. Zondervan Press. 2000
[29] McDowell, Josh & Stewart Don. Answers to Tough Questions: Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith. San Bernardino. Here’s Life Publishers. 1980. pg. 23; Sproul, R.C. Reason to Believe. Grand Rapids. Zondervan Press. 1978. pg. 27.
[30] Carswell, Roger. Why Believe? Bletchley: Authentic Media, 2004. pg. 20
[31] Ibid. pg. 21
[32] For post-resurrection texts, see 1 Cor. 15:8; Kreeft, Peter & Ronald K Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions. Downers Grove. Intervarsity Press. 1994. pg. 201.
[33] Ibid. pg. 204.
[34] Taylor, James. Introducing Apologetics. Grand Rapids. Baker Academic. 2006. pg. 277
[35] Ibid., pg. 275
[36] Phillips, pg. 86
[37] John 14:26; 2 Pet. 1:20-21 NIV
[38]Phillips., pg. 291
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Kreeft, pg. 205
[42] Ibid., pg. 214
[43] Ibid.
[44] Philips, pg. 100
[45] Geisler, Norman L. “The Concept of Truth in the Inerrancy Debate.” Bibliotheca Sacra, no. 137 no 538 (1980): pg. 332
[46] Til, pg. 197
[47] Dulles, Avery. “The Rebirth of Apologetics.” First Things, no. 143 (2004): pg. 21
[48] Ibid.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Dulles, pg. 22
[52] Phillips, pg. 101