Personal Knowledge in Apologetics

[Afterthought]

Probably a very basic question, but how should we describe personal knowledge of God in an apologetics context if someone objects that a Christian's personal knowledge of God is nothing more than a "burning in the bosom" sort of claim--that is, that pretty much anyone could make such a claim--even those whom we acknowledge are deceived--and that such claims are based on unreliable feelings--even as we admit in the case of those who are deceived? Perhaps we should not even bring it up in an apologetics context? If we do not though, how will the simple Christian respond to questions that go farther than they are able to answer philosophically?

 

[Loopie]

I would say that a good place to start is to ask a person how they 'know' anything. From a presuppositional approach we would say that all knowledge is God-given. Something can only be known because it is God who has known it (and decreed it) from eternity past. As believers our knowledge is a derivative knowledge from God. The secular philosopher cannot account for any knowledge at all.

One of my favorite examples is David Hume. Hume tried to find a way around the problem of induction, but he was ultimately unable to do so (because in his search for knowledge he did not start with God). One example is the sun rising tomorrow. Hume would say that no one 'know' that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. Our 'knowledge' is based on what has happened in the past. Certain events are often repeatable, and so from there we humans derive the so-called 'laws of nature'. The problem is that we have to assume that the laws of nature won't change tomorrow, and there is no rational reason to assume this. Secular philosophers like to suggest that we can know things because there are laws in the universe. They forget that laws have a law-giver. They also forget that there is no way to know that the universe will remain the same tomorrow, and that the 'laws' (like gravity) won't arbitrarily change.

 

[Afterthought]

^Thanks for the response! I may reply when I have more time later, but for now: any more thoughts? Agree or disagree with the above response?

 

[Peairtach]

I think there is a place for personal testimony; the Apostle Paul showed this. There is also a place for apologetics, and this should be of a more "objective" nature, otherwise it can be challenged on being purely subjective.

But Van Til and others have pointed out that evangelism and preaching should involve apologetics and philosophy, so there may be times when one feels it is appropriate to move from apologetics to personal testimony, or vice versa. It depends on the circumstances and the person(s) being addressed and their response.

Where possible and appropriate - as well as presenting sound apologetic arguments - the apologist will also want to present the Gospel to some degree, and refer to Scripture.

 

[Philip]

Probably a very basic question, but how should we describe personal knowledge of God in an apologetics context if someone objects that a Christian's personal knowledge of God is nothing more than a "burning in the bosom" sort of claim

The way that we discuss knowledge of other persons. We encounter a person and over time as the relationship develops we come to know them better as we hear them speak and see them act. That is how we come to know persons and it is how we come to know God.

 

[jwright82]

I think that the question to consider practically speaking is this, in what situations will it make for the most persuasive argument? I think that average christians should be more concerned with persuasive arguments than having leak tight logical arguments that are way over their head. Is my appeal to personal knowledge going to be the most persuasive reason I can give in this case? Also knowing your limits is just as important.

I for one think that any christian should know their level of ability in defending the faith. If you can't defend yourself against a philosophy than avoid debates with them, if it is brought on by them than be humble enough to say you are not qualified to answer these questions. But we should have apologests in the church whom these christians can turn to to refer the unbeleiver's arguments. I mean a real apologetics ministry in church should include a living breathing person who can talk to these people in the place of the average beleiver. This way the christian can say "I can't answer your questions but i know someone who can". I think this aspect of apologetics has been greatly ignored, to our detrimate.

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks guys! That's all very helpful!


So for the Christian who is outmatched in such a context would be forced to be no better off than a Mormon in the eyes of the unbeliever (that is, the Christian's final appeal to all argumentation after being bested in it would be to personal knowledge)? Could that possibly shake the Christian's faith if the unbeliever mentioned that to the Christian? Perhaps it isn't fair to lump "personal knowledge" into the same category as the Mormon's giddy stomach (or perhaps other claims of personal knowledge of a false god)? Perhaps the simple act of the Christian redirecting the unbeliever to someone else is sufficient to satisfy the Christian's faith? Thoughts?

 

[Peairtach]

WCF Chapter One Of the Holy Scripture

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.

An able aopologist will be able to show unbeklievers that all men have knowledge of God, if not all men have saving knowledge of God.

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

It is true that all apologetic argumentation is useless without the evidence of the "personal knowledge" of God that the Holy Spirit works in the heart of the believer, to enable him to receive and believe the Word, and yet the Holy Spirit uses both apologetic argumentation and personal testimony to convert people.

The Holy Spirit does a salvific and moral work in the heart with God's Word that enlightens the intellect. God's Word is ultimately self-attesting, but sound apologetics, testimony to conversion, preaching, evangelism and phiosophic discussion can be used by the Spirit.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. (Matt 5:8)

 

[Afterthought]

The Holy Spirit does a salvific and moral work in the heart with God's Word that enlightens the intellect. God's Word is ultimately self-attesting, but sound apologetics, testimony to conversion, preaching, evangelism and phiosophic discussion can be used by the Spirit.

So it would seem you are saying there is more than one component to apologetics, and so personal knowledge should not be the only appeal. But what about the Christian I mentioned above? Should he or she be allowed to appeal to personal knowledge in the end (while of course pointing the unbeliever to an able apologist), even though it appears (to the unbeliever) to be an irrational appeal that anyone could make?

 

[jwright82]

The Holy Spirit does a salvific and moral work in the heart with God's Word that enlightens the intellect. God's Word is ultimately self-attesting, but sound apologetics, testimony to conversion, preaching, evangelism and phiosophic discussion can be used by the Spirit.

So it would seem you are saying there is more than one component to apologetics, and so personal knowledge should not be the only appeal. But what about the Christian I mentioned above? Should he or she be allowed to appeal to personal knowledge in the end (while of course pointing the unbeliever to an able apologist), even though it appears (to the unbeliever) to be an irrational appeal that anyone could make?

From a specific "proof" P.O.V. than yes it would be somewhat "irrational". Now Plantinga has worked out well that she has every reason to believe this personal knowledge but when she enters into a debate with someone, which she probably shouldn't have, who is "over-her-head" in academic matters this can be legitematly called into to question.

 

[kappazei]

Thanks Eric. And may the Lord bless you for serving, even though it's not my country, it's still NATO.

 

[Philip]

From a specific "proof" P.O.V. than yes it would be somewhat "irrational".

It says in Scripture that we are to be able to give a reason for the hope that is in us. The context makes it clear that this is talking about personal testimony and the gospel, not necessarily philosophical arguments. Such arguments are neither the basis nor the explanation for faith.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

nothing more than a "burning in the bosom" sort of claim

Sounds very Mormon and neglect of presupposition and epistemology.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Should he or she be allowed to appeal to personal knowledge in the end

Is this what he is going to judged by? I appeal to Romans 1 and History.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

An able aopologist will be able to show unbeklievers that all men have knowledge of God, if not all men have saving knowledge of God.

This is not true in the second part. He has revealed things when He wants to. Not necessarily when we desire. We can not make men or ourselves believe. It is a total gift. All men are required to submit though.

I appeal to Deuteronomy 29:29.

(Deu 29:29) The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

 

[kappazei]

From a specific "proof" P.O.V. than yes it would be somewhat "irrational".

It says in Scripture that we are to be able to give a reason for the hope that is in us. The context makes it clear that this is talking about personal testimony and the gospel, not necessarily philosophical arguments. Such arguments are neither the basis nor the explanation for faith.

Yet in 'The City of God' Augustine makes liberal use of philosophers, notabley Plato to authenticate the gospel over pagan teachings. "The bible says it, I believe it." just doesn't persuade in our post Christian culture anymore....please let me add, as long as the philosophy is in harmony with scripture.

---------- Post added at 02:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------

how will the simple Christian respond to questions that go farther than they are able to answer philosophically?

"A person with a true experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument."~ anonymous

 

[Philip]

Yet in 'The City of God' Augustine makes liberal use of philosophers, notabley Plato to authenticate the gospel over pagan teachings. "The bible says it, I believe it." just doesn't persuade in our post Christian culture anymore.

I am not claiming that these are useless---but you're asking about the personal reasons why you personally believe. I believe because God changed my heart of stone and revealed Himself to me by the Holy Spirit. That's the story I tell. My philosophy is secondary---it's faith seeking understanding.

 

[Peairtach]

Randy

An able aopologist will be able to show unbeklievers that all men have knowledge of God, if not all men have saving knowledge of God.

This is not true in the second part. He has revealed things when He wants to. Not necessarily when we desire. We can not make men or ourselves believe. It is a total gift. All men are required to submit though.

I appeal to Deuteronomy 29:29.

(Deu 29:29) The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

I'm just saying that although God is known to men through general revelation, His saving knowledge is contained in His special revelation, which normally comes to men in salvation through the written or heard Scriptures.

---------- Post added at 11:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 PM ----------

Thanks guys! That's all very helpful!


So for the Christian who is outmatched in such a context would be forced to be no better off than a Mormon in the eyes of the unbeliever (that is, the Christian's final appeal to all argumentation after being bested in it would be to personal knowledge)? Could that possibly shake the Christian's faith if the unbeliever mentioned that to the Christian? Perhaps it isn't fair to lump "personal knowledge" into the same category as the Mormon's giddy stomach (or perhaps other claims of personal knowledge of a false god)? Perhaps the simple act of the Christian redirecting the unbeliever to someone else is sufficient to satisfy the Christian's faith? Thoughts?

I think that a personal testimony to our salvation that makes intelligent use of the Scriptures to interpret that testimony is not purely subjective, and may be used of God, even although the person does not have a sophisticated or unsophisticated apologetic.

 

[jwright82]

From a specific "proof" P.O.V. than yes it would be somewhat "irrational".

It says in Scripture that we are to be able to give a reason for the hope that is in us. The context makes it clear that this is talking about personal testimony and the gospel, not necessarily philosophical arguments. Such arguments are neither the basis nor the explanation for faith.

I agree but as far as strict "proof" goes than it is less than perfect as "proof" of anything. It is evidence all day long but not proof of anything.

 

[kappazei]

"I am not claiming that these are useless---but you're asking about the personal reasons why you personally believe. I believe because God changed my heart of stone and revealed Himself to me by the Holy Spirit. That's the story I tell. My philosophy is secondary---it's faith seeking understanding. "

Totally agree. Thank you for clarification Philip.

---------- Post added at 05:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:57 PM ----------

To reiterate one of the previous members, I certainly think would be more honouring to the Lord to just say to an opponent, "Well, what you're saying is over my head." than winging it.
"The man responded, "I don't know if he's a sinner or not. But I ... I used to be blind, but now I can see."

It's not just a 'burning in the bosom', as it were. It's a new behaviour and outlook and joy. Which might explain why it is the new believer who tends to bring others to church. These days, I tend to ask back a critic, "So how's it working for you?"

 

[jwright82]

To reiterate one of the previous members, I certainly think would be more honouring to the Lord to just say to an opponent, "Well, what you're saying is over my head." than winging it.
"The man responded, "I don't know if he's a sinner or not. But I ... I used to be blind, but now I can see."

It's not just a 'burning in the bosom', as it were. It's a new behaviour and outlook and joy. Which might explain why it is the new believer who tends to bring others to church. These days, I tend to ask back a critic, "So how's it working for you?"

I think that again it must be asked under what conditions would personal knowledge be persuasive to the unbeleiver. We must always ,following Wiliam Edgar at WTS, take a transcendental aproach to apologetics in that we seek to affect the whole person (not just their intellect). We may use our own personal knowledge of God in certian situations to persuassivly argue for the truth of Christian theism. But if it is the case that the unbeleiver calls the beleiver to question that this does not prove anything than the beleiver must take a more intellectial aproach.

 

[Philip]

James, in many cases, personal testimony of grace in one's life is much more persuasive than an intellectual argument. We can touch hearts, but there's not much that we can do to heads except hit them (apologies to G.K. Chesterton).

 

[jwright82]

James, in many cases, personal testimony of grace in one's life is much more persuasive than an intellectual argument. We can touch hearts, but there's not much that we can do to heads except hit them (apologies to G.K. Chesterton).

I completly agree.

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks guys! Lots of helpful stuff in this thread. Since someone mentioned something about the use of personal knowledge appeals depends on the situation, here is the kind of situation I had in mind.


Unbeliever: So why do you believe in God?
Christian: Because [insert argument for God's existence or presuppositional defense].
Unbeliever: No, they don't work. [proceeds to "refute" such arguments--either really, because the Christian didn't word things properly, or in appearance, because the Christian can't tell that the arguments have not really been refuted].
Christian: Oh.
Unbeliever: So do you still believe in God?
Christian: Yes.
Unbeliever: Why do you then?
Christian: I personally know who God is. The Holy Spirit opened my eyes to see the truth of the matter--that I was a rebellious sinner, who among other things was repressing what should have been clear. I continue to know that God is as the Holy Spirit bears witness with the Scriptures.
Unbeliever: [Well, I guess the unbeliever could say all sorts of things at this point! But one of them would include the, "Well, anyone could say that! How do you know you're no better off than the mormon?" Another would include, "How do you know that the Spirit who bears witness is the Holy Spirit?" If I understood Turretin correctly, I think such would be answered "The marks in Scripture of the Spirit match with this Spirit showing He is indeed the Holy Spirit." Another response from the unbeliever could be, "What do you mean by personal knowledge?" or something to that effect, in which case, Philip answered that nicely.]

Another situation I had in mind could be with a Christian who is not necessarily unevenly matched with the unbeliever.

Unbeliever: So why do you believe in God?
Christian: Well, the ultimate reason is because I personally know Him: God has revealed Himself to me personally with His Holy Spirit and His Word, showing my blindness as a sinner and bringing me to repentance; indeed, that is the only way you will ever believe too. Hence, any arguments for God's existence that I can give are merely to show that such a belief is reasonable and are not the foundation of my faith, so even if you refute these arguments, I will still believe. Nevertheless, because I know that my personal knowledge of God will not persuade you, I will go ahead with such arguments anyway.
......


So thoughts about the use of personal knowledge in these cases? I tried to formulate the "faith seeking understanding" type of reasoning in the last scenario, but if I could have used better language and/or been more precise, I certainly appreciate correction (even though that isn't the main topic of this thread)! I also realise that "Why do you believe in God?" is not the most precise statement, but it is the way the question of "Why are you a Christian?/Why do you believe in the Christian God?" is usually formulated (in my experience), though it also is the way "Why do you believe God exists?" is also formulated--and "God" in that sense may or may not be the Christian and true God.


Edit:

I think that a personal testimony to our salvation that makes intelligent use of the Scriptures to interpret that testimony is not purely subjective, and may be used of God, even although the person does not have a sophisticated or unsophisticated apologetic.

Out of curiosity, what would this look like?

 

[Loopie]

I just want to quickly point out that if a presuppositional method of apologetics is presented accurately, the unbeliever won't be able to refute those arguments. I think the goal for the Christian would be to always try to seek out the underlying presuppositions and assumptions that the non-Christian is holding. Once you find them, you can proceed to address the consistency of the non-Christian's argument. I agree that sometimes this is tough, but if the Christian cannot tell that his arguments have not really been refuted, things will be much more difficult for him.

I completely agree with you in your last paragraph that ultimately it is God who has chosen us. We did not choose him first. Many non-Christians (and some Christians) believe in a 'neutral' ground, where a person can be completely unbiased before reaching a conclusion. This is an illusion, as either we are alive in Christ or dead in sin. There is no neutral ground with God. As Romans 1:18-20 teaches, men suppress the knowledge of the truth. They are not neutral. With that in mind all you can really do is present this situation to them by pointing out that neutrality does not exist, and that they currently are suppressing the knowledge of the truth. God's truth has been clearly revealed so that they are without excuse. In the end, like you said, the only reason why you believe in God is because he has removed the heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh. You are no longer willfully blind to the truth, and you no longer suppress your knowledge of God like you once did.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Many non-Christians (and some Christians) believe in a 'neutral' ground, where a person can be completely unbiased before reaching a conclusion. This is an illusion,

AMEN! We all have inclinations that turn us one way or another.

 

[jwright82]

Thanks guys! Lots of helpful stuff in this thread. Since someone mentioned something about the use of personal knowledge appeals depends on the situation, here is the kind of situation I had in mind.


Unbeliever: So why do you believe in God?
Christian: Because [insert argument for God's existence or presuppositional defense].
Unbeliever: No, they don't work. [proceeds to "refute" such arguments--either really, because the Christian didn't word things properly, or in appearance, because the Christian can't tell that the arguments have not really been refuted].
Christian: Oh.
Unbeliever: So do you still believe in God?
Christian: Yes.
Unbeliever: Why do you then?
Christian: I personally know who God is. The Holy Spirit opened my eyes to see the truth of the matter--that I was a rebellious sinner, who among other things was repressing what should have been clear. I continue to know that God is as the Holy Spirit bears witness with the Scriptures.
Unbeliever: [Well, I guess the unbeliever could say all sorts of things at this point! But one of them would include the, "Well, anyone could say that! How do you know you're no better off than the mormon?" Another would include, "How do you know that the Spirit who bears witness is the Holy Spirit?" If I understood Turretin correctly, I think such would be answered "The marks in Scripture of the Spirit match with this Spirit showing He is indeed the Holy Spirit." Another response from the unbeliever could be, "What do you mean by personal knowledge?" or something to that effect, in which case, Philip answered that nicely.]

Another situation I had in mind could be with a Christian who is not necessarily unevenly matched with the unbeliever.

Unbeliever: So why do you believe in God?
Christian: Well, the ultimate reason is because I personally know Him: God has revealed Himself to me personally with His Holy Spirit and His Word, showing my blindness as a sinner and bringing me to repentance; indeed, that is the only way you will ever believe too. Hence, any arguments for God's existence that I can give are merely to show that such a belief is reasonable and are not the foundation of my faith, so even if you refute these arguments, I will still believe. Nevertheless, because I know that my personal knowledge of God will not persuade you, I will go ahead with such arguments anyway.
......


So thoughts about the use of personal knowledge in these cases? I tried to formulate the "faith seeking understanding" type of reasoning in the last scenario, but if I could have used better language and/or been more precise, I certainly appreciate correction (even though that isn't the main topic of this thread)! I also realise that "Why do you believe in God?" is not the most precise statement, but it is the way the question of "Why are you a Christian?/Why do you believe in the Christian God?" is usually formulated (in my experience), though it also is the way "Why do you believe God exists?" is also formulated--and "God" in that sense may or may not be the Christian and true God.


Edit:

I think that a personal testimony to our salvation that makes intelligent use of the Scriptures to interpret that testimony is not purely subjective, and may be used of God, even although the person does not have a sophisticated or unsophisticated apologetic.

Out of curiosity, what would this look like?

Yes, you are using it in a good way. Yes it would not be "proof" in one sense but it is intelligable and a good reason to believe in God. Just as Descarte's "proof" of self is only proof to the person doubting and not proof to anyone else, so to our "internal testemony" of the Spirit is proof to us and no one else. We can then say well I "know" that God has spoken to me, why should I doubt that? Reference to other cultic beleifs of "hearing" God are irrelivant to my own experiences. Yes these others could or are wrong but That doesn't mean that my own are wrong.

 

[Peairtach]

Raymond

Quote Originally Posted by Peairtach
I think that a personal testimony to our salvation that makes intelligent use of the Scriptures to interpret that testimony is not purely subjective, and may be used of God, even although the person does not have a sophisticated or unsophisticated apologetic.

Out of curiosity, what would this look like?

Well a person would have to think about their testimony and then find suitable Scriptures to back up their subjective experience and give it objective body.

A personal testimony with theological interpretation from Scripture is going to be superior to a personal testimony without, because the former points the hearer to God's Word.

Remember that the Scriptures are self-attesting, so a personal testimony with Scripture - whether accepted or rejected - is going to be more effective than one absent of Scripture, even if no other apologetic is given.

But if a person feels they need to, they should gen up on aplogetics also.

Get the argument/discussion round to Christ eventually.

I'm sure a presuppositional version of the Christological argument can be designed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christological_argument

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks all! That certainly helps!