[Reposted from a Previous Blog]
A friend of mine responded to a Facebook post I shared about apologetics. He claimed that apologetics seems to be at odds with fundamentalism (a label which he knows I gladly take). Through the course of the conversation we rabbit trailed and meandered through some other areas and miscommunications and even had trouble coming to an agreement on the definition of fundamentalism and the nature of faith. I thought it would be good to do my best to have a clear and concise explanation of my position on this.
A friend of mine responded to a Facebook post I shared about apologetics. He claimed that apologetics seems to be at odds with fundamentalism (a label which he knows I gladly take). Through the course of the conversation we rabbit trailed and meandered through some other areas and miscommunications and even had trouble coming to an agreement on the definition of fundamentalism and the nature of faith. I thought it would be good to do my best to have a clear and concise explanation of my position on this.
Fundamentalism was explained in a previous blog (http://think-faith.blogspot.com/2014/01/fundamentally-unashamed.html) as simply holding to the basic teachings of Christ and the Bible with the usual bagage of closed-minded bigotry being polar opposite to the teachings of Christ.
The
best I could grasp it, the idea my friend posed seemed to be that fundamentalism
is based on faith and faith can't be based on evidence or it ceases to
be faith. Since apologetics is the use of evidence, therefore,
fundamentalists (like myself) would be inconsistent to use apologetics.
That may not be exactly what he was getting at, but that's what I got from it. Also, I have heard this sort of idea before.
Christian Apologetics as was being used in our conversation I think is best summed up
as "a reasoned support of Biblical truth using extra-biblical evidences."
Faith
is a tricky thing and a point of much debate in theological and
philosophical circles. My friend seemed to indicate (and I have heard
this way of thinking before) that the very nature of faith is believing
something in a vacuum of evidence (my words).I operate under the
definition that Christian faith is
reasonable trust in beliefs that have been demonstrated to be
trustworthy.
Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so ... yes, AND
because there is other extra-biblical reasons to believe that to be
true.
The idea of apologetics
comes from the urging we have to be ready and able to give a defense
or explanation for the ideas, beliefs, principles, etc. that you adhere to.
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear."
Can extra-biblical sources serve as evidence for biblical truth?
A
reasoned argument for apologetics is that extra-biblical evidence is
not proof that determines the truth of the Bible, it is evidence that
describes
the truth of the Bible. God's Word is not dependent on our ability to
prove it to be true. However, since God created the world and everything
in it, we should expect to find other evidences that agree with the
Bible but which are not specifically from the Bible.
An analogy would be a crime. Say I am a citizen deemed to have
impeachable
character and generally considered by all to be honest and trustworthy
(we're just pretending), and I stop a crime in progress. From my vantage
point I saw the entire thing from the beginning until I stepped in. I
saw
the victim. I saw the perpetrator, who happens to also live down the
street from me. I heard what was said, and
immediately after the criminal fled, I was able to record the entire
thing in exquisite detail in my notebook app on my new tablet I got for Christmas. Now, my testimony alone may be
enough to convince a jury and convict the criminal. Does that mean that
the police should not get fingerprints and check security cameras and
check with other witnesses? Is the truth of my testimony dependent on
other evidence being gathered? Does the use of
these other evidences somehow undermine the strength of my testimony?
Of course not. Those other evidences corroborate and lend support to the
truth of the primary testimony given, but they have no bearing on
whether it is actually true, maybe just whether or not a person will
find it more believable.
In
the same way, apologetics lends support and additional corroboration to
the testimony of scripture, but scripture is not dependent on
apologetics to be true or authoritative.
Since the
Bible is primarily our source for truth, what does it have to say about
using extra-biblical evidences (logic, reason, science, etc)?
God
created the world (Genesis 1 and 2), and we know that to at least some
degree knowledge about God is knowable from His creation (Romans
1:19-20).
While
creation alone cannot point to the specific knowledge of Jesus Christ
as the savior of the world on whom we must believe to receive
forgiveness of sin, it does demonstrate the existence of
God and certain qualities about Him and about us.
We
are commanded to love the Lord not only with our hearts but also with
our minds (Matt 22:37). Our faith is not only one of love but also
entails a "sound mind" (2 Timothy 1:7). The whole point of the book of
Proverbs is about being wise and not foolish in your thinking. "A wise man will hear and increase learning, And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel" (1:5).
Jesus often used parables which involve use of logic and reason to
explain a concept in a more mundane or relatable way so it can then be
brought into the greater religious context. He didn't just quote the
Torah.
Peter, in Acts 2, lays out the case and makes a defense (apologetics) for
the reason Jesus came and died (and rose again) and why those present (and us as well) needed to put
their faith in Him.
Acts 17 says that Paul "reasoned" with the Jews in the synagogue.
Paul also makes frequent use of quoting other philosophers and sources,
using people's own philosophies and traditions to help explain
Christianity to them and make the case for Christ: http://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/paul-and-his-use-of-greek-philosophy/.
What it gets down to is this: If something is true, we do not expect to
find only 1 place where it is supported and demonstrated to be true. If
it is true that you are an honest person, I do not just take your word
for it ... though you saying so would be true. I can check with your
spouse, family, friends, co-workers, bosses, classmates, and find out if
you are indeed an honest person. Evidence outside of you supports a
truth claim about you.
In the same way, since the Bible is true, it is only rational that other
things in life would demonstrate and point to the truth found in the
Bible. And this is indeed what we see, and making use of those other
evidences found in extra-biblical realms of knowledge to point back to
the ultimate truth of God found in the Bible is not only consistent with
a fundamentalist worldview, but it is a prudent and wise thing to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment