Neogillist
Puritan Board Freshman
The whole of Christian Faith lies on two anxioms:
1) God exists.
2) God has revealed Himself through His Word, which is the Bible.
Throughout the history of the church, these two anxioms used to be accepted by almost all people. During the Reformation, and even long before, all Europeans held to these anxioms. Now look again today, and you will find that very few people actually accept anxiom #2. I actually met an atheist last summer, and he did not accept either anxioms. All that he wanted to have is PROOF. However, God expects love and trust from us, and love does not require proof. In fact, I would even argue that faith and fact are opposite to each other. Where there is fact, there cannot be faith. Faith does not rely on first-hand knowledge, but second-hand knowledge. While second-hand knowledge is required to exercise faith, it differs from first-hand knowledge in that it is not obtained at the horse's mouth. For example, a student may read in his science textbook that the speed of light is 3*10^8 m/s and believe it, or he may choose to go into the lab and measure the speed of light to obtain 3.1*10^8 m/s, and because it is pretty close to what the textbook says, he knows it to be true. This, however, did not require faith from him, since he had access to direct facts. (Now you might argue that he had faith in his instruments, his eyes, etc, but this is beyond the point).
When we present the gospel to unbelievers, we are basically transmitting them second-hand information, which itself was written down in the Scripture by those who had access to the facts. When new revelation would come, it was normal for people to demand proof, such as Paraoh did to Moses, or the Baal priests asked to Elijah, since new revelation is like a scientific hypothesis: it needs to be proved before being accepted as a theory. The same principle applies in the academic world. Scientists basically do their own research (which is first-hand knowledge), and publish their findings in scientific journals (which becomes second-hand knowledge), and is made available to other scientists to look at and use. Now since they do not always have the same equipment to reproduce the experiments, they ultimately must have faith in what they read in the scientific journals. The same truth applies to the Scripture. The seeker must come to the Scripture apart from proof, or he is placing the cart before the horse. Since we are required to come to God by faith, it would be inconsistent to attempt "proving" the gospel to the seeker, anyway. Moreover, although the seeker may be able to have a natural or historic faith in the doctrines of Christianity, this would still not suffice for him to attain salvation, since there needs to be the supernatural monergistic work of the Holy Spirit in him to become a true believer. So we realize how we are a long way off from using natural means for bringing someone to salvation.
Ultimately, for the believer the Gospel does prove itself in the end through the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, as John Calvin points out. This could be compared to the scientist being able to reproduce the scientific experiments he reads about in his own lab. But before this occurs, he must first have accepted the two anxioms of Christianity, just like the scientist must accept the scientific method. As a consequence of these things, when the evangelist comes to an unbeliever, he must know if the unbeliever accepts the two axioms to start with, or otherwise, the gospel offer will avail to nothing. In the even that the unbeliever has already been so hardened as to reject the two anxioms, than the evangelist is not responsible to present to him the gospel. He may attempt to get the unbeliever to accept the two anxioms, but that is not the work of the evangelist, it is the work of the apologist.
Consequently, before the gospel is preached, these two anxioms must be relied upon, or we are not going to go anywhere. Therefore, when the evangelist meets a reprobate mind that rejects the anxioms, he is simply to pass over him and move on, just like God has already passed over him. As for the apologist, he may try to convince him to accept the two fundamental anxioms but if he persists in rejecting the foundation, he will have to be left alone.
I think this is basically a good summary of why we must rely on some form of presuppositional apologetics in the end, any other method is bound to be inconsistent with the system itself.
1) God exists.
2) God has revealed Himself through His Word, which is the Bible.
Throughout the history of the church, these two anxioms used to be accepted by almost all people. During the Reformation, and even long before, all Europeans held to these anxioms. Now look again today, and you will find that very few people actually accept anxiom #2. I actually met an atheist last summer, and he did not accept either anxioms. All that he wanted to have is PROOF. However, God expects love and trust from us, and love does not require proof. In fact, I would even argue that faith and fact are opposite to each other. Where there is fact, there cannot be faith. Faith does not rely on first-hand knowledge, but second-hand knowledge. While second-hand knowledge is required to exercise faith, it differs from first-hand knowledge in that it is not obtained at the horse's mouth. For example, a student may read in his science textbook that the speed of light is 3*10^8 m/s and believe it, or he may choose to go into the lab and measure the speed of light to obtain 3.1*10^8 m/s, and because it is pretty close to what the textbook says, he knows it to be true. This, however, did not require faith from him, since he had access to direct facts. (Now you might argue that he had faith in his instruments, his eyes, etc, but this is beyond the point).
When we present the gospel to unbelievers, we are basically transmitting them second-hand information, which itself was written down in the Scripture by those who had access to the facts. When new revelation would come, it was normal for people to demand proof, such as Paraoh did to Moses, or the Baal priests asked to Elijah, since new revelation is like a scientific hypothesis: it needs to be proved before being accepted as a theory. The same principle applies in the academic world. Scientists basically do their own research (which is first-hand knowledge), and publish their findings in scientific journals (which becomes second-hand knowledge), and is made available to other scientists to look at and use. Now since they do not always have the same equipment to reproduce the experiments, they ultimately must have faith in what they read in the scientific journals. The same truth applies to the Scripture. The seeker must come to the Scripture apart from proof, or he is placing the cart before the horse. Since we are required to come to God by faith, it would be inconsistent to attempt "proving" the gospel to the seeker, anyway. Moreover, although the seeker may be able to have a natural or historic faith in the doctrines of Christianity, this would still not suffice for him to attain salvation, since there needs to be the supernatural monergistic work of the Holy Spirit in him to become a true believer. So we realize how we are a long way off from using natural means for bringing someone to salvation.
Ultimately, for the believer the Gospel does prove itself in the end through the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, as John Calvin points out. This could be compared to the scientist being able to reproduce the scientific experiments he reads about in his own lab. But before this occurs, he must first have accepted the two anxioms of Christianity, just like the scientist must accept the scientific method. As a consequence of these things, when the evangelist comes to an unbeliever, he must know if the unbeliever accepts the two axioms to start with, or otherwise, the gospel offer will avail to nothing. In the even that the unbeliever has already been so hardened as to reject the two anxioms, than the evangelist is not responsible to present to him the gospel. He may attempt to get the unbeliever to accept the two anxioms, but that is not the work of the evangelist, it is the work of the apologist.
Consequently, before the gospel is preached, these two anxioms must be relied upon, or we are not going to go anywhere. Therefore, when the evangelist meets a reprobate mind that rejects the anxioms, he is simply to pass over him and move on, just like God has already passed over him. As for the apologist, he may try to convince him to accept the two fundamental anxioms but if he persists in rejecting the foundation, he will have to be left alone.
I think this is basically a good summary of why we must rely on some form of presuppositional apologetics in the end, any other method is bound to be inconsistent with the system itself.
