Faith and Reason: Navigating Apologetics Today

Devotional

Day 1: Faith as Reasoned Trust

True biblical faith is not blind but is a reasoned trust in God. It is important to distinguish between faith and credulity, as blind faith can lead to a shallow understanding of God. Faith should be informed by reason, as God is the Spirit of truth. [02:48]

"For we walk by faith, not by sight." (2 Corinthians 5:7, ESV)

Reflection: Consider an area in your life where you have been relying on blind faith. How can you seek a deeper understanding of God's truth in this area through study and prayer today?

Day 2: Evidentialism and the Quest for Certainty

Evidentialism provides a high degree of probability for God's existence through historical evidence, yet it still leaves room for doubt. The classical approach seeks to provide conclusive proof, leaving no room for doubt, by demonstrating that rationality itself demands the existence of God. [05:36]

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1, ESV)

Reflection: Reflect on a time when you struggled with doubt. How can you use both evidence and faith to strengthen your conviction in God's existence today?

Day 3: Presuppositionalism and the Foundation of Rationality

Presuppositional apologetics begins with the assumption of God's existence, which is criticized for circular reasoning. However, it emphasizes that rationality presupposes God, as without God, there is no foundation for rationality. [12:03]

"For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their craftiness.'" (1 Corinthians 3:19, ESV)

Reflection: Identify an area in your life where you rely heavily on human wisdom. How can you begin to acknowledge God's foundational role in your reasoning and decision-making?

Day 4: Self-Consciousness as the Starting Point

The classical approach begins with self-consciousness, acknowledging our creaturely nature. From self-awareness, we move to the existence of God, avoiding the assumption of autonomy. This method respects the limitations of human reasoning while affirming God's existence. [20:29]

"I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well." (Psalm 139:14, ESV)

Reflection: Spend time today in self-reflection. How does acknowledging your own limitations lead you to a greater understanding and appreciation of God's existence?

Day 5: The Order of Knowing and Being

The debate between classical and presuppositional apologetics centers on the order of knowing, not the order of being. While God is first in the order of being, the process of knowing begins with self-awareness and leads to the affirmation of God's existence. [23:02]

"For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:36, ESV)

Reflection: Consider how your journey of knowing God has evolved. What steps can you take today to deepen your understanding and relationship with Him, acknowledging His primacy in all things?

Sermon Summary

In our exploration of apologetics, we find ourselves at a crossroads, grappling with the legacy of Immanuel Kant's critique of traditional arguments for God's existence. This has left the church with the challenge of finding a new approach to apologetics that avoids the pitfalls Kant identified. One response has been fideism, which suggests that faith alone, without rational argument, is the path to belief in God. However, this approach can lead to a blind faith that lacks the depth and assurance that reason can provide.

The story of the mountain climber illustrates the danger of relying solely on blind faith. True biblical faith is not credulity or foolishness; it is a reasoned trust in God. Tertullian's rhetorical question, "What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?" highlights the tension between faith and reason. While some argue that Christianity is absurd from a worldly perspective, it is not objectively absurd, as God is the Spirit of truth.

Another approach to apologetics is evidentialism, which argues from historical evidence to establish a high degree of probability for God's existence. This method, while compelling, still leaves room for doubt. The classical approach, which I advocate, claims that the existence of God can be proven conclusively, leaving no room for doubt. This approach is distinct from presuppositional apologetics, which begins with the assumption of God's existence and argues from there. While presuppositionalism is criticized for circular reasoning, it emphasizes that rationality itself presupposes God.

The classical approach begins with self-consciousness and moves to the existence of God, avoiding the pitfalls of assuming autonomy. This method respects the creaturely nature of human reasoning, starting with self-awareness and leading to the necessary affirmation of God's existence. The debate between these approaches is ongoing, but all agree on the importance of establishing God's existence as the foundation of a person's worldview. The disagreement lies in the order of knowing, not the order of being.

Key Takeaways

1. **Faith vs. Reason:** True biblical faith is not blind but is a reasoned trust in God. It is important to distinguish between faith and credulity, as blind faith can lead to a shallow understanding of God. Faith should be informed by reason, as God is the Spirit of truth. [02:48]
2. Evidentialism and Probability: While evidentialism provides a high degree of probability for God's existence through historical evidence, it still leaves room for doubt. The classical approach seeks to provide conclusive proof, leaving no room for doubt, by demonstrating that rationality itself demands the existence of God. [05:36]
3. Presuppositionalism and Circular Reasoning: Presuppositional apologetics begins with the assumption of God's existence, which is criticized for circular reasoning. However, it emphasizes that rationality presupposes God, as without God, there is no foundation for rationality. [12:03]
4. Starting with Self-Consciousness: The classical approach begins with self-consciousness, acknowledging our creaturely nature. From self-awareness, we move to the existence of God, avoiding the assumption of autonomy. This method respects the limitations of human reasoning while affirming God's existence. [20:29]
5. Order of Knowing vs. Order of Being: The debate between classical and presuppositional apologetics centers on the order of knowing, not the order of being. While God is first in the order of being, the process of knowing begins with self-awareness and leads to the affirmation of God's existence. [23:02]
** [23:02]

Youtube Chapters

[00:00] - Welcome
[00:29] - Kant's Challenge to Apologetics
[01:02] - Fideism and Blind Faith
[01:27] - The Mountain Climber Illustration
[02:48] - Faith vs. Credulity
[03:15] - Tertullian's Question
[03:50] - Historical Arguments for God
[05:01] - Evidentialism and Moral Certainty
[06:13] - Lessing's Great Ditch
[07:13] - Classical vs. Evidential Apologetics
[08:23] - Presuppositional Apologetics
[10:17] - Van Til's Circular Reasoning
[12:03] - Critique of Circular Reasoning
[14:52] - Presuppositions in Rational Argument
[16:08] - Rationality and God's Existence
[17:45] - Starting with Self-Consciousness
[19:55] - Augustine and Self-Awareness
[21:29] - Intramural Debate in Apologetics
[23:02] - Order of Knowing vs. Order of Being

Sermon Clips

One of the main ones was what I've already defined as fideism, where people try to just leap over the ditch, or jump over the wall, or go around it, dig under it, through faith, saying, "No we can't argue convincingly for the existence of God. This is something that you just have to take on faith." [00:00:51]

And that reminds me of one of my favorite illustrations that I used to hear from Jim Boyce, where he told the story of the mountain climber who was high up on the wall of the mountain, a couple of thousand feet from the canyon floor, when all of the sudden, his rope broke and he started to fall. [00:01:37]

And he reached out and grabbed a hold of a tiny little branch that was growing out of the rocks, and he was holding on with all of his might, with one hand suspended, two thousand feet above the ground, and he could -- he could feel that the branch was coming loose from the side of the rock face. [00:01:57]

And suddenly, there was this deep voice coming out of the clouds saying, "I can help you. Trust Me. Let go of the branch and have faith." So then the mountain climber looked up at the clouds, and he looked down in the canyon floor, and he looked back up at the clouds and said, "Is there anybody else up there that can help me?" [00:02:23]

But again, people are saying that the way of the Christian world is the way of faith, not the way of reason. The ancient church father, Tertullian, raised the question rhetorically, "What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?" And he said, "I believe Christianity because it's absurd." [00:03:08]

Others take the position that the way to reconstruct theism is through appeals to history. I have many friends who are apologists who take this route, acknowledging that arguments from the field of history can never give you absolute proof but only a high degree of probability based upon empirical investigation, but that that high degree of probability gives you what's called moral certainty. [00:03:54]

The evidentialists argue that the evidence drawn from history and elsewhere gives you a high degree of probability for the existence of God, where the classicist argues that proof for the existence of God is conclusive -- that it is, in fact, compelling -- that it is actual proof and leaves people without any excuse whatsoever. [00:07:32]

The book that I co-authored with John Gerstner and Lindsley we entitled "Classical Apologetics" includes in one-third of that book a comprehensive critique of presuppositionalism. So because of that book that Art Lindsley and John Gerstner and I authored, we have become engaged in ongoing dialog within the reformed camp with respect to what is the preferred approach to doing apologetics. [00:09:16]

The presuppositional approach says this: that in order to arrive at the conclusion that God exists, in order to prove the existence of God, you must start with your primary premise, your first premise, being the presupposition of the existence of God. In other words, that unless you start by presupposing the existence of God, you will never get to the conclusion of the existence of God. [00:10:52]

What he's saying, is that if you want to assume rationality, to even assume rationality, involves you, out of necessity, of presupposing the existence of God because without God, there is no foundation for rationality. There's no foundation for trusting the law of causality. There's no foundation for trusting the basic reliability of sense perception. [00:15:38]

Where we say you start is with self-consciousness, and from self-consciousness, you move to the existence of God. You don't start with God-consciousness and move to the existence of the self. By necessity, human beings thinking with human minds must start with where they are, with their brains. [00:17:54]

We say God is first in the order of being, but not first in the order of knowing. And in our next class, I will begin to demonstrate how classical apologetics constructs its case for the existence of God. [00:23:07]

Ask a question about this sermon

Chatbot

Transcript

What was the most surprising thing in this sermon?

Were there any personal stories shared?