It would be like trying to win an argument by saying, Lets start by assuming that you are wrong. And then I can prove that you are wrong. It wouldnt make sense to agree to those terms.
However every Bible believing apologist who starts by arguing from Scripture does precisely this. It doesnt follow that he has resiled in the least from his personal position In fact Paul implies precisely this tactic by arguing that God can be known from creation.
“I dont have to accept the terms of the critic of air in order to debate with him.”
No you dont but your calling is to be all things to all men for the sake of the Gospel not to indulge in intellectual arrogance because you have a sound personal epistemology.
I am aware that I argue against the AiG line. I deeply value the contribution of AiG to apologetics but to insist that an atheist accept scriptural veracity before accepting that it is the more rational choice before him is to promote blind faith and unscriptural
—A.T, U.K.
A Fair Outreach
You guys rock!! I got so excited about the Kids’ Answers section in my latest [Answers] mag that I put up a booth at our (small) county fair about “Why do bad things happen?” and I used your materials—with the Kids’ Answers and your 4 Answers [Book] for Kids [volumes]. I pray that lots of people see it and go to the Bible for their answers about God and the Bible!! I cut out lots of photos of Micheal Jackson with a big “Why Do People Die?” on it and the front of your latest magazine that has the pear with the bite out of it that says “One Bite Changed Everything!,” Romans 5:12, etc., and I made a poster. KEEP IT UP with the great resources! . . . THANK YOU! Blessings!
—L.P., U.S.
It would be like trying to win an argument by saying, Lets start by assuming that you are wrong. And then I can prove that you are wrong. It wouldnt make sense to agree to those terms.
However every Bible believing apologist who starts by arguing from Scripture does precisely this.
No, the biblical apologist stands on the authority of the Word, even while defending it, just as the non-believer stands on his worldview while defending it. The way to debate, then, is to compare these respective worldviews and show that the non-believing worldview is internally defective, being arbitrary, inconsistent with itself, and/or failing to provide the preconditions necessary for knowledge.
It doesnt follow that he has resiled in the least from his personal position In fact Paul implies precisely this tactic by arguing that God can be known from creation.
Paul never abandoned the authority of the Word; he never accepted unbiblical terms for debating. In Romans 1:20, Paul tells us that God can indeed be known from creation—but not from an allegedly “neutral” view of creation. The reason that men know God is not because of their intelligence or reasoning about the natural world. Rather, it is because God has made Himself known to men (Romans 1:19). Thus, all unbelievers do have an innate knowledge of God, even though they may verbally deny this. They rely on biblical presuppositions (such as logic, morality, and uniformity) while denying the God who provides these presuppositions (Romans 1:21–22).
“I dont have to accept the terms of the critic of air in order to debate with him.”
No you dont but your calling is to be all things to all men for the sake of the Gospel . . .
In 1 Corinthians 9:19–22 , Paul tells us that he has become all things to all men in the sense of respecting their customs so that he might win some—providing those customs were not contrary to Scripture. Paul never did this at the expense of Scripture. In other words, Paul did not become a murderer to witness to murderers or an adulterer to win adulterers. Nor did Paul ever abandon the authority of Scripture simply to argue with those who had abandoned the authority of Scripture. That would be unbiblical.
not to indulge in intellectual arrogance because you have a sound personal epistemology.
There is never any room for arrogance in Christian apologetics because we know that it is only by God’s grace that we have been saved—not only from eternal hell, but also from intellectual absurdity. This is why we must always debate with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15), but we never abandon scriptural authority by attempting to argue on allegedly “neutral” terms.
I am aware that I argue against the AiG line. I deeply value the contribution of AiG to apologetics . . .
We thank you and hope that you will continue to benefit from this ministry.
but to insist that an atheist accept scriptural veracity before accepting that it is the more rational choice before him is to promote blind faith and unscriptural
Apart from scriptural veracity, nothing could be rational at all, since the Bible alone provides the basis for laws of logic, rationality, etc. Thus, the atheist has already implicitly accepted scriptural veracity when he attempts to use God’s laws of logic or when he relies upon the methods of science (which are based on God’s faithful upholding of the universe) or when he makes moral judgments. He does know in his heart-of-hearts the biblical God. However, the atheist verbally denies this. His position is intellectually inconsistent; he is irrational. To make matters worse, he wants us to agree to his irrational standard. Clearly, it would be irrational and unscriptural to agree to his terms—which the Bible calls “foolish” (Psalm 14:1; Proverbs 1:7).
So, it is unbiblical for us to accept the foolish terms of the critic; if we were to agree to his terms, we would become foolish too (Proverbs 26:4). Instead, we must show the irrationality of his terms by pointing out their inconsistency. We show for argument’s sake where his philosophy would lead if it hypothetically were true so that he cannot be “wise in his own eyes” (Proverbs 26:5). We demonstrate the inconsistency of the atheistic worldview without abandoning our own.
I hope this helps.
—Dr. Jason Lisle