VERITAS
"How Do We
Know?"
By Craig Branch
April 2002
How
do we know Christianity is true? This is the apologetics
question (as Areopagus Journal editor Steve
Cowan says
in his article in this issue). While true, there are two
other related questions that are central to the apologetic
task. They are, “How does anyone know anything that
is true?” and “How do we know the Bible is
true?” The latter question was addressed in our last
issue. This issue deals with the first question.—a
question which falls under the philosophical category of
epistemology, a discipline concerned with how and why we
know.
Knowing the Truth
One of the challenges in teaching apologetics is to make it accessible and
relevant to the average Christian. Too often, apologetics seems to be
highly intellectual,
requiring a knowledge of philosophy, logic and other higher-order thinking
skills. Realistically, at least when dealing with a small percentage
of skeptics, this
is a true assessment. Not everyone, however, has to engage unbelievers at
this level. Nevertheless, without claiming that every Christian needs
to be a professional
philosopher, it is true that a basic understanding of epistemology is helpful
and needed for all Christians.
The Bible
makes truth claims that are increasingly under attack in
many quarters of our modern and postmodern cultures.
What is truth? How do we know it? How
do we establish truth claims? How do we think of evidence, presuppositions,
and worldviews? And how can we best point out the flaws of the skeptics’ objections
and of their own belief perspectives?
Perhaps the following example will help. A few years ago, The Southern
Baptist Convention published a prayer and evangelism strategy to reach
Jews (and those
of other religions). In our postmodern, politically correct culture, preaching
the exclusivity of Christ is anathema.
The press
joined in with the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
to loudly protest this effort, calling it
bigoted and even precipitous
to the kind of atmosphere that produced the holocaust! Though conservative
politically and a Roman Catholic, Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly
of the O'Reilly Report joined in the protest. In an interview with Paige
Patterson (then president
of The Southern Baptist Convention), O’Reilly expressed being offended
at the exclusive Christian position presented by the SBC evangelism strategy
and fired off at least six objections to Patterson, all rooted in attacking
Christian epistemology, and inadvertently revealing his own epistemological
weakness.
For example,
after O’Reilly said that he would be offended
if someone told him that he would go to hell for not believing in Christ,
Patterson countered
with, “Would you be offended by an oncologist who told you that
you had cancer and if you didn't get it treated, you would die?” But,
O’Reilly
responded, “There is a difference between an oncologist who’s
dealing with something concrete that you can see in an x-ray, and a belief
which is
something based on faith.”
Would you
be able to “give an
apologia” (1
Peter 3:15) to O’Reilly?
In our growing postmodern culture, this kind of objection is more and
more commonplace. Patterson responded with Scriptural authority, quoting
Jesus’ own exclusive
claims. O’Reilly again responded with a faulty epistemological
argument saying, “But you can interpret that in many different
ways. I believe Jesus walking around today simply wouldn’t say
that.” But how does O’Reilly
know? On what are his opinions based? On what basis can he or anyone
know anything that is true?
The heart
of the Apologetics Resource Center’s
mission statement is, “to
reach the minds and hearts of people with the message and truth claims
of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” and “to equip Christians
with a culturally relevant apologetic, enabling them to have a deeper
level of personal faith,
contend for that faith, and to enter arenas of resistance, reclaiming
ground lost to skepticism, secularism, and other alien philosophies.” There
is a great need today for this emphasis. Noted Christian apologist
and philosopher William Lane Craig, in commenting on the moral disintegration
of our culture,
writes,
If the situation is not to degenerate further, it is imperative that
we turn the whole intellectual climate of our culture back to a Christian
world-view.
. .
. . . Moreover, it’s not just Christian scholars and pastors
who need to be intellectually engaged. Christian laymen, too, need
to become intellectually
engaged. . . . [If not,] then we are in serious danger of losing
our children.1
Is Craig
employing hyperbole? The most recent surveys demonstrate
that Craig is right on target with his exhortation.
Compared to only two
years ago, the
number of Americans who believe that absolute moral
truth exists dropped from 38% (January 2000) to 22% (November
2001). If that
is shocking
news, the state
of the “Christian” community’s beliefs
on absolute truth is even more alarming. 56% of those
fitting the “born-again” Christian
category say they are not certain of the existence
of absolute moral truth. 40% of “evangelicals” assert
that there are no moral absolutes! And among “born-again” Christian
teenagers, only 9% are certain of the existence of
absolute moral truth!
So, is
this apologetics topic important? Imperative? Relevant?
God, through Paul, gives us an imperative, “Stop
thinking like children. In. . .your thinking be adults” (1
Cor. 14:20). Paul elsewhere exhorts
us to “renew
our minds,” to have “the mind of Christ” (Rom.
12:1-2; 1
Cor. 2:16; Phil.
2:5). So I pray you will read and digest the
following articles,
and then
engage your own thinking, others, and the culture.
The first
article is written by Dr. J. P. Moreland, one of the most
prominent evangelical philosophers
of our day.
In his article, “Three Obstacles to
Theological Knowledge: A Christian Response,” he
responds to a fundamental question: “Is Christianity
a knowledge tradition or merely a faith tradition,
a perspective which, while true, cannot be known
to be true, and instead must be based on the basis
of some epistemic state [framework of knowing]
weaker than
knowledge?” Moreland bases his answer on
two premises. They are: (1) Christianity claims
to be
a knowledge tradition and places knowledge at the
center of proclamation
and discipleship; and (2) knowledge is the basis
for responsible action or life in society. Moreland
proceeds to address “three major sources” of
objections to the Christian claim to truth. They
are relativism, skepticism, and scientism. Everyone
reading this will undoubtedly
encounter people with
at least one of these barriers to faith.
James Beilby
and David K. Clark, both of Bethel Seminary,
provide the reader with an introduction
to the field
of epistemology in our
second
article.
They define the concept of knowledge and outline
important principles for forming
and testing beliefs. Central to gaining knowledge
on their view is the development of intellectual
virtues, those habits of mind which
enable
the truth-seeker to
better acquire true beliefs and avoid false beliefs.
ARC's own Dr. Steve Cowan builds on the foundation
of Moreland, Beilby and Clark by addressing the
next logical and essential
step: “How Do We Know that
Christianity is True?”
Do you
know how to explain to someone how you know Christianity
is true? Steve points out that most Christians
know that Christianity
is true, not based on research, historical
evidences,
and a refutation of all objections, but upon
an inner testimony (not a feeling) of the Holy
Spirit. But
lest one wonders how that differs from Mormonism's “inner
testimony,” Steve
proceeds to demonstrate how Christianity can
be shown to be true, and why it ought to be
believed.
Our fourth
article, “Lean Not
on Your Understanding,” is written
by ARC’s Clete Hux and Steve
Cowan. They
address the role of Scripture in knowledge.
Their premise is that the Bible alone is the
only sure source of
knowledge (epistemology). They elaborate on
two points: (1) The Bible gives us knowledge
of truths that we could not otherwise know;
and (2) the Bible provides
us with control beliefs by which we can test
truth-claims alleged to come from other sources.
Clete and Steve use examples of how three groups
tragically violate
this principle—Mormons, Word-Faith teachers,
and popular occult purveyors.
I invite you to read and study the articles
in this journal in order to strengthen your
ability
to defend
the faith. It may be helpful
to read
them several times.
Being the
Truth
In the space I have left, I want to add a
perspective that is so important in the
apologetics mission.
That perspective is that knowing
the truth
is inseparable
from being the truth, lest the study and
acquisition of knowledge becomes self-righteous
Phariseeism
(1
Cor. 13:2).
We cannot
easily escape from the thought patterns of our culture
which simply reflect
our own
self-absorbed, fallen natures. The scientific
empiricism of the
Enlightenment-modernist culture demands
control and explanation. We
seek technology which gives ease and
mastery to ourselves and which tends
to make God less and
less relevant to us. Other factors tempt
us to
choose a deity who does not threaten
our misguided sense
of security, or our sense of
mastery
over our circumstances,
or our rampant individualism. So we begin
to invent controllable deities.
Individualistic
Christianity will inevitably lead to an individualistic
god, one who
is there for
you, for your
needs, for your personal
happiness. But
Jesus says “he who wants to find
his life must lose it and he who loses
his life for My sake, he is the one who
finds it.” In order for us to truly
grasp and live out the greatest commandment “to
love the Lord your God with all your
heart, mind, and soul and strength,” we
must first understand who the true God
is and who we are as His image-bearers
in Christ. We must also identify
those false gods we’ve invented,
understand those lies we’ve believed,
and “seek first His kingdom and
His righteousness” in all areas
of life, at all times, resting in the
power
of His might—a
life of faith.
Donald
McCullough describes some of the false gods or idols we
construct
and
pursue. He
challenges us with the charge
that “Our obsession with self
has led us astray into the temple of
idols: in particular the god-of-my-comfort,
god-of-my-success, and the god-of-my-nation.”2
He also observes that the individualism
of our day has moved us to construct
a pantheon of the “god-of-my-cause,
god-of-my-understanding, and the god-of-my-experience.”3
I will elaborate on the first three “gods” in
what follows.
The God-of-My-Comfort.
Our therapeutic culture has conditioned
us to locate the sum total of human
existence in happiness.
While the Westminster
Confession
of Faith
states
that the chief
purpose of man is to glorify God,
pursuit of the
god-of-my-comfort leads to the reverse:
the
chief purpose of God is to glorify
man. Spirituality is no
longer
considered true or good because it
meets the absolute standards of truth
or goodness, but because it helps
to get me through. As the new Psalmist
says, “The
Lord is my shepherd, He gives me
what I want.” Some
seek happiness through sensory pleasure
(hedonism); others through earthly
possessions (materialism/consumerism);
and some through the acquisition
of knowledge for knowledge
sake (rationalism). Yet all of these
goals are contingent and circumstantial,
dependent on earthly
things or another person rather than
on God and for His
glory.
We believe “God
is love” and
that He loves me. But too often
our understanding is that this means
he will keep or deliver us from
all discomfort. Yet we must never forget
or deny that God’s love has
another dimension as well (read
Luke
9:23-25; Hebrews
12:5-6, 10-11—no
really, read it).
The God-of-My-Success.
This false god is a near relative
of the god-of-my-comfort. Most
of us believe
that
fulfillment can be
achieved through power, status,
and prestige.
In our
culture it’s called “the
American Dream.” It expresses
itself in activism and/or busyness—my
life must be filled with either
meaningful and/or important activity
for me to achieve true significance.
I am what I do,
or what I produce. Yet if we
are out of balance or outside
God’s will in
this, when we climb up that ladder
of “success” we
discover that it was leaning
against the wrong wall.
Entwined
with these two false gods (idols)
is the preoccupation
with
health and
appearance. There
is a national epidemic
of personal fitness,
spas,
anorexia, diet pills, Prozac,
and even new age “alternative
medicine” (a billion
dollar a year industry). There
is even an overtly Christianized
version in the forms of TBN
and “Christian
radio” with their
prosperity message or Health
and Wealth Gospel.
Also, a
drive that is manifest within these
two gods is the
idol of individualism.
This manifests
itself
in self-sufficiency, self-centeredness,
self-dependence,
often aggressive, and often
so full of self that it has
no room
for God.
Examine
your
calendar and checkbook to
see where your time and
money
are spent in order
to help see what your true
priorities are
in relation to the above.
The
God-of-My-Nation.
This is the belief that Christianity
is America, confusing patriotism
with Christianity.
America
is the Kingdom of God.
It is the actual or underlying
sentiment of most
Christians that God is
a Republican,
and the Kingdom will be
ushered in by the Republican
Party. So
all our discussions, fears,
confidence, and
thus energy
(or lack thereof) are directed
toward politics rather
than walking with
Christ in the
true Kingdom.
In addition
to these three gods, another way that
we have constructed
a false
god is by
making God
out to be a Grand
Inquisitor who constantly
condemns us
and is ready to vent
his anger on us. Yet another
way is the
wide-spread adoption
of the therapeutic god created
by our self-preoccupied,
therapeutic culture,
as evidenced by the fact
that the
best-selling
Christian books (behind
fiction)
are self-help
or “how-to” books.
Can we imagine an understanding
of the gospel that is
bigger and beyond our
own personal
salvation? Can we imagine
a God and a church which
don’t exist just
for me? Can we reorganize
and deal ruthlessly with
our excuse-making,
rationalizations,
and blaming of others?
I
pray that pointing
out these “gods” will
help you in your own
process of redeeming
the time; seeking first
His kingdom
and His righteousness;
being
in the world but not
of it; loving God with
all your heart, mind,
soul, and strength;
and knowing where your treasure
is. We can
do all things through
Christ Who continually
infuses his strength
into us (Phil.
1:6).
1 William Lane Craig,
Reasonable Faith (Wheaton,
IL: Crossway,
1994), xii,
xiv-xv.
2 Donald McCullough,
The Trivialization
of God (Colorado
Springs, CO:
NavPress, 1995),
41.
3 Ibid., 27.ow
(top) |
