The Conversion of an Evolutionist: Rational Argument or Spiritual Witness?
Priorities in Presenting the Faith: an apologetic of evangelism (Part 4)
We began with Dr. Whitcomb’s testimony of salvation and early witnessing efforts. From there Dr. Whitcomb spoke of obstacles to evangelism, the fallen nature of man and the opposition of Satan. In Part 3 Dr. Whitcomb made the point that evangelism that effective evangelism must always draw the attention of the lost to God’s word. Saving power is in the Word. That is where witness can succeed. (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)
Dr. Whitcomb concluded Part 3 with this paragraph:
What he must do is to keep the heart and mind of his unbelieving friend exposed to God’s Word in one way or another, all the time praying that the Spirit of God might bring conviction of sin and a willingness to trust the Savior. If he does not respond to God’s infallible Word, which is His special revelation, what assurance do we gain from the Bible that He will respond to the witness of general revelation, such as the various theistic proofs for God’s personal existence and historical evidences for the truth of Christianity?
He continues:
The Christian who adopts such a Bible-centered method must, however, prepare himself for intense criticism, even from fellow Christians. To subordinate rationalistic argumentation to the supremacy of Scripture is to cut across the grain of all our natural inclinations and invite the accusation of obscurantism. “After all,” we are being told on every side, “with so many false religions, cults, and philosophies in the world today, is it not the right and responsibility of an intelligent person to investigate carefully the validity of Christianity in comparison with other possible alternatives before making a final decision?”
Again, the answer is — “no”. Christianity is not simply one of the several available religious truth systems. Nor is our Lord Jesus Christ just one of several saviors we may investigate at our leisure and on our own terms.
Furthermore, our intelligent investigator is far from being neutral and unbiased in spiritual matters. He cannot sit in judgment with complete objectivity as one religion after another passes in view, waiting to find one that is logically coherent, historically and scientifically factual, and personally satisfying before adopting it as his own.
Quite to the contrary, men are active enemies of the one true God of revelation and redemption, in whose image and likeness we have all been created, and in Whom “we live and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). While it is true that the divine image has been marred through the Fall, it is nevertheless very much intact (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9).
It is precisely because man does bear God’s image that he inwardly knows Who this God is. That is why he runs away from God and His Word and hides his face from Him, (cf. Genesis 3:10; Isaiah 53:3). That is why he also hinders or suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) and “hateth the light, neither cometh to the light” (John 3:20).
Sinful men cannot innocently claim that God is an unknown entity to them — “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Romans 1:21). These are the reasons why sinful men actually have no right to demand “proper credentials” when the Creator says to them: “Repent! Believe My Word! Obey Me — NOW!” When the Holy Spirit says to the human heart, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” it is potential suicide to procrastinate, investigate or debate. “Behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2). “God … now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). God may graciously prolong the appeal, but sinful man cannot presume upon this!
Let us look at the matter from a different perspective. If an unregenerate man actually did have the right to demand full intellectual satisfaction concerning the claims of God’s Word before accepting them, he would be the greatest of fools for settling for anything less than a complete demonstration.
But in order to have such a demonstration he would have to examine carefully all the pertinent facts and every possible alternative before receiving Christ as his Lord. Of course, he would die long before he could arrive at the place where he could make a decision on this basis. Such an approach to Christian apologetics is not only unbiblical but it leads to logical absurdities!
To give an unbeliever the impression that he has a right to demand answers to all the rational problems relating to the Bible and Christianity before he repents of his sin and turns to Christ for forgiveness, is to set him up on a pedestal of intellectual and spiritual pride from which he will never descend. What can such endless debates actually accomplish in preparing such a person for “the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel” (Romans 2:16)?
What can be said for such rationalistic apologetics when God has commissioned us to present “all the counsel of God” (cf. Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 20:27; 2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2)? And how do we respond to Paul’s admonition to Timothy — “be gentle unto all men, apt to teach [i.e.: to teach revealed truth], patient, in meekness instructing [i.e.: with Scripture] those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil” (2 Timothy 2:24-26)?
If the New Testament is our infallible guide in such matters, we must conclude that the Christian who will be most effectively used by God in winning people to Christ is not the one who knows the most about secular philosophy, psychology, history, archaeology, or natural science (important though these disciplines may be in their proper place in developing a comprehensive Christian world-and-life view). It will be the Christian who knows most about God’s Word, and who humbly seeks God’s daily strength and wisdom in obeying it.
The best Christian apologist is the best student Scripture, who, to use the Bible’s own terms to describe him, is “a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,” because he is “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
He will be a man like Apollos — “mighty in the scriptures … instructed in the way of the Lord … [who] spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord,” and thus by God’s Word “he mightily convinced” unbelievers (Acts 18:24-28).
The writer finds himself in complete agreement with those who insist that Christianity is supremely rational. This is not because the Christian understands everything that God has revealed, for even the apostle Paul refused to make such a claim (Romans 11:33; I Corinthians 13:9; see also 2 Peter 3:16).
The reason why one must insist on the essential rationality of Christianity is because of the nature of God Himself. His thoughts have been communicated to us effectively and in truth. The Bible is perspicuous (1 John 2:20, 27). However, man’s finiteness will prevent him from knowing God exhaustively.
The Gospel may be foolish “to them that perish” (1 Corinthians 1:18), but it is not intrinsically foolish; it is perfect and infinite wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:20-29). Thus, the Christian message is ultimately rational. But this is very far from saying that the Christian message can be communicated rationalistically to lost men.
The apostle Peter, by the Spirit of God, commanded each believer to “be ready always to give an answer [Gk: apologian] to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). Does this mean that the Christian must go outside the sphere of revelational truth to provide intellectual and academic justification for his faith in God’s Word to the unbeliever? Could Peter himself have fulfilled such a command in view of his very limited background?
Would the apostle Paul, who was widely known for his great learning (Acts 26:24; cf. 22:3), have indulged in such pursuits for the philosophically-minded Corinthians in view of his avowed determination “not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified … that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Corinthians 2:2 and 5)? Hardly so.
One therefore suspects from the very outset that the very popular semi-rationalistic interpretation of 1 Peter 3:15 is misguided.1
This suspicion is confirmed by an examination of the immediate context of the passage. Peter was writing to persecuted Christians who were being terrorized by their pagan neighbors. They were commanded, however, not to sink into despair, but to recognize their truly “blessed” situation (cf. Matthew 5:10; James 5:11).
Furthermore, they were neither to fear nor to be troubled (1 Peter 3:14; cf. Isaiah 8:12). But why should they adopt such an attitude? Was it because they knew they could out-maneuver their enemies in intellectual debate? Definitely not! Early Christians did not include “many wise men according to the flesh” among their number (1 Corinthians 1:26).
Their confidence was really based upon their spiritual resources in Christ the Lord, Whom they were to sanctify in their hearts.
Furthermore, the words that follow Peter’s command to “be ready always to give an answer” are highly significant. This defense is to be made with “meekness and fear” (cf. Colossians 4:6) and with “a good conscience; that … they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.”
Note carefully that these conditions have nothing to do with rationalistic debate, for a basic assumption underlying such debate is that a correct answer is effective regardless of the presence or absence of meekness, reverence or godliness in the one giving the answer. But in a spiritual witness to the truth of God, these factors are absolutely vital.
Conclusion tomorrow.
Dr. John Whitcomb is well known as a theologian and apologist. Among his many books are The World that Perished and The Genesis Flood (with Dr. Henry Morris). This series of articles is reproduced with permission.
You can contact Dr. Whitcomb via his website at: www.whitcombministries.org
Listen to Dr. Whitcomb’s sermons: www.sermonaudio.com/sermonsspeaker.asp
- Whereas pure rationalism in apologetics would claim that unbelievers can be argued directly into the kingdom, semi-rationalism claims that – “The purpose of apologetics is always merely to clear away the intellectual obstructions so that the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit may do their work” (Edward John Camell, “How Every Christian Can Defend His Faith,” in Moody Monthly, February, 1950.) [↩]