Throughout the entirety of the New Testament evangelism is imperative for all believers to practice. In order for a believer to properly share his faith with the unbelieving masses, it is crucial that he be prepared to properly articulate and defend his faith to a both skeptical and hostile crowd if he hopes to attain any progress in conversion. It is in satisfying this requirement does the practice of apologetics find its purpose. It is the author’s intention in this paper to present the nature and purpose of this indispensable element of evangelism and personal discipleship.

What is Christian Apologetics?

The word “apologetic” is derived from the Greek word apologia, which “a verbal defense, as in a legal situation”, or “to plead one’s case.” In relation to the Christian Faith, apologetics seeks to prove the validity of Christianity, while at the same time defending it from opposing ideologies. For evangelistic purposes, apologetics can remove intellectual barriers that may prevent an unbeliever from believing the gospel.

Along with several New Testament passages command believers to provide a verbal defense for the faith they profess (see 1 Pet 3:15, Jud 3, Col 4:6, etc.), Scripture also gives account of both Christ and the apostles using apologetics to persuade unbelievers toward belief (Phil. 1:7, 1 Cor. 15, Jhn 8:18, etc.). From the Biblical witness, it is evidently clear that the practice of apologetics is both Scriptural and necessary for evangelistic purposes. It is also essential to note that the commands concerning apologetics given to believers are universally binding, which means that it is every believer’s responsibility to act as an apologist for the gospel’s sake.

What can Apologetics do?

Since apologetics main task is the defense of the veracity of Christianity, there are both potential tasks it can, fulfill but certain functions it cannot perform. Apologetics can be used to refute opposing theories and ideologies, to vindicate the Christian worldview against its assailants, and defend Christianity as a system. It is also necessary to realize that apologetics can only function only as a necessary element of conversion, but not as a sufficient element.

The Biblical testimony is clear that only through Divine assistance by means of the Holy Spirit and volition participation of the unbeliever can regeneration take place. Although apologetics may bring an unbeliever to the point of witnessing the reality of the gospel, the decision to believe lies in the capacity of the unbeliever’s own volition.

Types of Apologetics

It is also worth noting that there are a variety of apologetic methodologies that are practiced. The classification and study of such methodologies leads to the branch of apologetics known as metapologetics. Within the field of metapologetics, there are a variety of apologetic systems which many have categorized into four main categories based on certain attributes intrinsic to the system.

Classical apologetics consist of arguments that have particular use of reasoning and logic. While much emphasis is placed on the deductive logic, classical apologists often synchronize such reasoning with inductive methodologies (historical evidence as an example). Classical arguments often characterized by two basic steps. First, by proving God’s existence through traditional theistic proofs, and secondly, proving the Resurrection through historical evidence.

Evidential apologetics consist of arguments using evidence to prove Christianity’s validity. Such lines of evidence include historical evidence of miracles and the Resurrection, appeals made to the fulfillment of prophecy, scientific evidence revealing the existence of God, or any other inductive system of gathering evidence.

Experiential apologetics (also known as fideist apologetics) consist of arguments dealing with subjective existential experience to validate the Christian faith. Many supporters of the method claim dogmatically that Christianity cannot be proven through evidence or rationality, but only through experiencing the doctrines of Christianity through faith can one “know” it to be the truth.

Presuppositional apologetics (also known as reformed apologetics) consist of arguments that require certain Biblical presuppositions to be true. Such presuppositions include the existence of the Triune God, the authority of the Word of God, and the sovereignty of God. Such arguments prove the truth of Christianity while taking into account certain Biblical doctrines as being necessary presuppositions.

The categorization of apologetic systems is often not encouraged by several apologists, since there are several areas of overlap between each category, thus making categorization a difficult and redundant process. It is clear that each category has its own set of strengths and advantages, but this also means each system has its own unique weaknesses as well.

It is the author’s personal opinion that there isn’t a “perfect” system, but that through combining each category into an integrative system, several faults and flaws in each method can be neutralized while certain strengths and advantages intrinsic to each system can be multiplied. Now while it is clear that each approach contains areas of overlap, the integrative purposely seeks to combine such methodologies together. This approach of combining apologetic systems into synthetic system is known as an integrative approach to apologetics. Many prominent apologists (including the one in which this group has been named after) have adapted such an approach in an attempt to formulate stronger arguments and eliminate certain faults present in the ones currently possessed.

Conclusion

While this isn’t an exhaustive piece concerning the all the details of apologetics, it serves as an introduction to both the methods and the nature of Biblical apologetics. By observing the Biblical position concerning apologetics, it is imperative that Christians be ready to defend the faith they profess to believe. It also clear that a variety of methods are at the disposal of the Christian apologist, and that apologetics is in itself a branch of Biblical wisdom that should never be neglected.

Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 43.

This is a paper that was presented by Joshua Shirey on April 14, 2008.

Sola Scriptura

 An essay concerning the inerrancy of Scripture

By Joshua Shirey

Originally presented to the Francis A. Shafer Philosophy Society of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on April 4^th, 2008

Introduction

In an attempt to expound on the correlation of the Protestant Reformation proposition known as “sola Scripture” or “Scripture alone” with religious beliefs in general, it became apparent that this must be done primarily outside the context of Reformation literature and dogma. When I began to research Sola Scriptura, I found there to be a lack of documentation concerning the specific origin of this proposition and the other “Cries” or “Solas” of the Reformation. As a result of this deficiency of historical analysis, the principle of “Sola Scriptura” will be analyzed in this brief essay primarily in it essential (as opposed to historical) relation to religious beliefs.

It must be noted however, that even though one is hard pressed to find a fullness of historical data concerning the proposition of “sola Scriptura” in and of itself, it is widely accepted that this proposition was central to the Protestant Reformation. For example, R. C. Sproul, in his book Scripture Alone, states that Phillip Manlanchthon, Martin Luther’s partner in the Reformation, gave “sola Scriptura” the status of the “formal cause of the Reformation.” Although the chief theological issue of the Reformation was justification, the question of authority was at the bottom of almost every controversy raised by the Reformation.[i] In addition to understanding that “sola Scriptura” preceded the Reformation in cause, it must be noted that this principal was and is at the heart of almost every Protestant confession of faith, dating all the way back to The Theses of Berne, a Reformed confession written in 1528.[ii] Near five centuries later, the Baptist Faith and Message (2000) has contained in its first article the statement that “all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy…and (is) the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.” [iii]

Therefore, since the origin of this proposition of “Scripture alone” is somewhat ambiguous[iv] and it nevertheless, has deep roots in all of Protestantism, the proposition of “sola Scriptura” or “Scripture alone” will be analyzed in this essay not strictly relating to any one person, work, or creed, but as the proposition itself relates to religious epistemology in general. This task will be done under the guiding statement that pure scripture is unique in that it is the only inerrant source of information, particularly concerning divine revelation.

What I mean by ‘Pure Scripture’

Three primary issues need to be addressed to understand what I mean by saying ‘Pure Scripture’. These are 1) Canonicity, 2) Original Autographs and 3) Authorial Intent. These three issues are straightforward and I hold to them unapologetically; thus, I will not waste space with a formal defense of theses ideas but will merely explain what I mean when I say them. Concerning canonicity, I hold that pure scripture is limited to the unadulterated collection of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments as listed by Athanasius in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.[v] The issue of canonicity is so basic and understood in Protestantism that it is hardly ever addressed, but it is important to clearly define this term when the question is asked “What is scripture?” or even more basic “What do you accept as your sacred literature?”

Concerning the original autographs, I hold that pure scripture is determined by what was contained in the original documents that were “God Breathed” when they were written (2 Tim 3:16-17). This issue is problematic because we have none of the original autographs. The oldest manuscripts we have are only pure if they agree with the originals, but since the originals have either been lost or destroyed, there is no way to be completely certain that what we have is indeed pure. The resolution to this issue is closely related to the divine inspiration of the originals. If God did indeed inspire the scriptures, superintending their composition on both the macro and micro level, it would make sense that he would also ensure that this special revelation would be passed down faithfully.

Concerning authorial intent, I hold that pure scripture is constrained by the authorial intent of both the divine author and the human author in their writhing and superintending of the original autographs. Authorial intent is that which an author intends his audience to learn through their reading or hearing of the words he uses. Pure scripture is the message that the author(s) intended the audience to know by the reading or hearing of the written word. In the scriptures, the human authorial intent and the divine authorial intent will never be in conflict but the latter may be greater in the sense of scope than the former. Where this third issue works itself out is in the debates of hermeneutics and translation. The hermeneutic and philosophy of translation of an interpreter will directly depend on the objective the interpreter holds in these two tasks. If the objective of interpretation is to discover the message intended by the author(s), the interpretation will be more pure than if the objective is otherwise.

Again, I am not offering a defense of these three issues. If anyone wishes to analyze the scriptures form the prospective of higher criticism, there are many better sources to dive into on this issue.

The “Only Inerrant” source?

Pure scripture is the only source of information that is inerrant. The next statement, namely, “concerning divine revelation”, is extremely important in clarifying and qualifying this preceding statement. However, for this section, the issue at hand is not the extent or implication of the inerrancy of the scriptures but the exclusive nature of this category of inerrant sources of information. I hold that pure scripture is the only source of information that is inerrant. This means that other documents, creeds, narratives, philosophies, &c, where they relate to message of the scriptures may be trusted only so far as they align with that message of the scriptures.

Concerning Divine revelation

This section must be addressed now to avoid any confusion through a convolution of the issue. As I said above, this section is very important in fully understanding the meaning of the proceeding statement. After I have addressed this topic briefly I will move to address both of these topics together and show how they relate.

My thesis states, “Pure scripture is the only inerrant source of information concerning divine revelation.” The reason why the last phrase is so important is the fact that there are other souses of information which are in some sense inerrant; for example, mathematics. Nevertheless, there is no source of information other than the scriptures, about God or what he has said, that is inerrant. The purpose of the Bible is to reveal God to man; it is God’s self-disclosure of himself to humanity, particularly in the person of Jesus Christ. More simply put, the Scriptures are from God and about God; the scriptures are unique in this way, in that they are divine revelation (they have God as there source) and their purpose is to reveal God to man. Other sources of information may have one of these attributes but only scripture has both of them, at least for this age of the Church.[vi]

It may already be clear from what has been said why this idea, namely that the scriptures are the only inerrant source of information about God, was beneath almost every controversy in the Protestant Reformation and is still hotly debated today. In the tradition of the Reformers, I unapologetically hold that pure scripture is the only source which humans, and in particular, Christians, may go to gain true knowledge concerning matters of faith and practice. Information concerning these matters that does not have scripture as its source must have scripture as its validation, otherwise humanity may neither hold it to be true nor use it as a guide in conduct. 

In the time of the Reformation, the authority in question was that of the pope and church councils. Luther did not say that these authorities were worthless (this was known as “solo Scriptura”) but rather that scripture was the means by which the believer must determine whether the pope or the councils were trustworthy. At the Leipzig debate in late June of 1519, Luther declared that, “a simple layman armed with the Scriptures is to be believed above a pope or a council without it.”[vii] Again, Luther’s point of contention is not that the pope or church councils should not be trusted at all, but rather that they should not be trusted as infallible or inerrant.

Today, because of the continuing effects of the enlightenment, the scientific revolution, the postmodernist movement, and many other intellectual reformations, the question of authority does not concern the papacy or a particular church council, but rather authority in itself. In the current prevailing mindset of western culture, authority has made a complete shift from divine revelation to things such as science, personal opinion, or cultural norms. Being in the wake of all these other alternatives, and in the midst of millions of people who are (possibly unknowingly) part of these schools of thought, Christians must stand firm on the foundation of pure scripture as the only trustworthy source of information concerning the things of God. Other sources of information regarding math, science, biology, physics, history, philosophy, &c may be trusted but wherever these categories cross over into the realm of faith and practice, which they inevitably will, scripture alone must be the supreme guiding principal.

Conclusion

I would like to conclude my argument with an admonition. If it is true that pure scripture is unique in that it is the only inerrant source of information, particularly concerning divine revelation it would logically follow that scripture deserves our utmost diligence in the study and application thereof. Christians can believe that scripture is the infallible word of God, but if this belief does not work itself out in matters of faith and practice in their lives, then they are no better that the pagans. In addition, if the scriptures are the only infallible source of knowledge about God, then it would also logically follow that Christians should dedicate themselves to the scriptures in a manner that puts them (the scriptures) highest in the hierarchy of authority in their (the Christian’s) minds. Otherwise, Christians will use other authorities to inform their understanding of scripture instead of using scripture to inform their understanding of these other authorities. If the Bible is the infallible Word of God, all of humanity, and especially Christians, are obligated to treat it as such. 

This is a paper by Keith Starks. It is currently unfinished so this essay will be updated when he has made all needed changes.

Philosophy/Theology Argument

            For anyone who has taken the time to understand this issue realizes it is not an easy task. To answer questions like: if philosophy and theology deal with some of the same concepts, why are they considered two different concepts? Have they ever been considered as one? If so, when and why did they split? There are different views and way to many explanations made to be fully explained. Although an attempt will be made by looking at histories events and ideas to see how they affect today.

            “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens, the church with Plato’s Academy, the Christian with the heretic?” Tertullian asked this question many years ago when Greco-Roman learning began to infiltrated most societies. There were some who urged the abandoning of Greco-Roman learning among the Christians because they felt such knowledge would corrupt the morality of the young and would lead Christians to doubt Scripture. Tertullian, in his book Prescriptions Against Heretics, argues that it is philosophy that supplies the heresies. He uses Colossians 2:8, “be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world and not based on Christ,” to support his argument. He also argues that, once we come to believe in Christ we have no desire to believe in anything else. Clement of Alexandria responded to this in his book, In Defense of Greek Learning. Clement argues that philosophy is a clear meaning of truth and how a person is truly learned when they are able to take what is useful (geometry, music, grammar, philosophy, etc.) and guard the faith. Saint Augustine also responded saying “believing all the branches of the pagan learning contain not only false and superstitious fantasies and burdensome studies that involve unnecessary effort, which each one of us must loathe and avoid as under Christ’s guidance we abandon the company of pagans, but also studies for liberated minds which are more appropriate to the service of the truth.” Greek learning eventually won out the day.

            There must be some mentioning of the distinction between the pre-modern and modern eras. In the pre-modern era, from recorded history to about the 1600’s, it could be agreed upon that metaphysics is the first philosophy. There are three, if I may, “categories” within metaphysics during this time: theology, cosmology and ontology. Theology saying that God exists and that everything else is contingent upon him and that the supernatural exists and does not conflict with science. Cosmology held that God is the first cause and the creator of everything. Epistemology came after metaphysics and it consisted of five “categories”: correspondence theory of truth, epistemological realism, community, hermeneutic of trust and teleological. Within the idea of the community the church viewed corporately shared beliefs to be important. The hermeneutic of trust says the content of the bible is inerrant, sufficient and authoritative. Most importantly the teleological held the idea that epistemology is dependent upon metaphysics. In some sense we can see that there is really no distinction between the two. In the modern age (1600-1950) things took a dramatic shift. Epistemology becomes the first philosophy and is no longer dependent upon metaphysics. Theology is separated from metaphysics, God’s existence is in doubt, science explains everything in the world, the individual comes before the community as a legitimate source of knowledge, the supernatural is rejected, science and reason are trusted over the Bible and people begin to hold to nominalism. Nominalism is the idea that universals no longer exist, only concrete particulars. How could have things taken such a turn like this? Who or what caused this?

            When asking somebody who, what or why about the separation of philosophy and theology many different answers will be given. Since there are so many different answers I will argue for two people and the idea of community to individual shift. One person that we cannot avoid to look at on the issue of philosophy/theology separation is Aquinas. What Aquinas did was separate what is usually called “nature and grace” on different levels. Grace on the higher (God the Creator; heaven and heavenly things; the unseen and its influence on the earth; mans soul; unity) and nature on the lower (the created; earth and earthly things; the visible and what nature and man do on earth; man’s body; diversity). Philosophy pertains to the realm in which natural reason operates and theology pertains to the realm where grace operates. In addition, Aquinas had an “incomplete view of the Fall,” says Schaeffer (which I have chosen to use much of his ideas dealing with Aquinas). Aquinas believed the will had fallen but the intellect was not affected. Through this, man’s intellect was seen as autonomous. According to Schaeffer this resulted in the development of natural theology. Natural theology is a theology that could be pursued independently from the Scriptures. “Aquinas had opened the way to an autonomous humanism, an autonomous philosophy; and once the movement gained momentum, there was soon a flood.” He did have a desire for unity though. Previous to his time there was not much emphasis on nature or the here and now. I think he wanted people to see nature as something good since God created it. I say this so that it won’t seem as if nothing good came from Aquinas. To move to my second point I will explain the community to individual shift in short. In the pre-modern era there was a sense of trust that people put in the church. If ideas were in conflict, they were able to be discussed at councils. In the modern era questions are brought forth to the church that could not be answered and that they do not want to deal with. For example, Galileo’s verification of Copernicus’s view of the universe: that the earth revolves around the sun. The church held to the view that the earth was the center of the universe. In Judges 10:13 it mentions how the sun stood still and the moon stopped. Galileo’s trail was significant to the church’s relationship to science. Philosophy is now becoming even more independent than before. William Ockham played a major part in the philosophy/theology separation. He is given credit for setting the stage for modern philosophy. To him universals are the worst mistake in the history of philosophy. “Universals are no more than concepts or words and have no reality outside the mind.” Basically raising the question, since we cannot experience them, why have them? He rejected Plato and Aristotle’s concept of universals and how Christians “modified” them to fit their worldview.

            It would not be fair to stop there on the philosophy/theology separation. David Hume came along and introduced what people call Hume’s fork, which holds that “truth must be empirically verified or based on reason. Anything not in line with these ideas must be consigned to the flames. Consequently it does not make sense to speak about God or religious truth.” Hume believed true knowledge could be found only in mathematics and experimental disciplines. Hume says, “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” Hume’s fork was the foundation for the verification principle. Not only were theologians cut out of philosophical discussions, but ethicists were to. In addition, to this Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) ushers in a new idea of community. Holding that, religious language makes sense in light of the religious community. So discussion about God is sensible within a religious circle because it is within these “communities” that meaning is determined.

            What is to be said of all this? Can philosophy and theology work together or should they be completely separate? I would argue that they can better help each other. But to do them separately or come to them with a different mind, as some say is necessary, seems impossible. Since theology is the systematic study of God and his divinity and philosophy defined by the Greeks is the love of knowledge or wisdom and Proverbs 1:7 tells us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, aren’t they compatible? We must admit though that since the move of a “pure” or first philosophy, the two have become very different in content. Theology deals more specifically with the Saviour, salvation, the kingdom of God and much more, while on the other hand philosophy has come to deal with abstract ideas. Likewise they are separated by their sources. The source of theology is divine revelation. Philosophy is rational and abstract. It proceeds not from faith, like theology, but seeks to base itself either on the indisputable fundamental axioms of reason, deducing from them further conclusions, or upon the facts of science or general human knowledge. Philosophy itself concludes that human thought by its nature is limited to boundaries. Without faith these boundaries cannot be crossed.

I)              The problem of philosophy

a.     Can lead to anti-Christian beliefs

                                        i.     Colossians 2:8

                                      ii.     Do not be deceived by worldly philosophies

b.     Synthesis can lead to heretical or dead beliefs

                                        i.     Heresies within the church caused by synthesis

1.     Gnostics attempted to synthesize Platonic thought with Christianity

2.     Neo-Orthodoxy attempted to synthesize Existentialism and Romanticism with Christianity

c.      Can supplant living spirituality

                                        i.     The philosophy can be true, but lack in any form of love

                                      ii.     It becomes cold and metallic – though solid, it offers no warmth to a cold world

II)            The benefit of philosophy

a.     Brings us closer to knowledge, which aids in our spiritual growth

                                        i.     By discovering life around us, we learn how the world operates

                                      ii.     Knowledge comes with good judgments (Psalm 119:66)

                                     iii.     Hatred of knowledge causes us to lose fear of the Lord (Proverbs 1:29)

                                     iv.     Knowledge is a thing of wise men (Proverbs 10:14)

                                      v.     The list simply goes on – knowledge is a thing to be pursued for righteousness and good living

b.     Aids in apologetics

                                        i.     We are to know our enemy’s methods, this is the work of a good tactician

                                      ii.     1 Peter 3:15 says we are to defend the Word

1.     “Defend” is apologia which is a legal term used to present convincing evidence, specifically for the defendant’s innocence

2.     “Word” is logos which can refer to a rational statement(s)

                                     iii.     Philippians 1:7, 16 has Paul stating that he is a defender of the Gospel

1.     In order to “defend” something, he had to be actively involved in debating opponents to the Gospel

2.     Vs. 16 shows that he was pro-active in his defense – he went out to the people instead of letting the debate take place in the Church

                                     iv.     Titus 1:9 says that a leader in the Church should be able to refute arguments against the Gospel

III)          Counter-arguments (taken from J.P. Moreland’s book Love Your God with All Your Mind.

a.     1 Corinthians 2:14-15 speaks of the foolishness of God

                                        i.     God has transcended the wisdom of man, therefore His followers should follow suit

                                      ii.     We are to be spiritual in our knowledge, not carnal

                                     iii.     Response:

1.     The Greek word used for “understand” is ginosko, which can carry an experiential knowledge with it – thus, natural man has not experienced the truth of God and therefore thinks it foolish

2.     Paul is really using a play on words – he’s showing that man’s wisdom (that is, wisdom apart from God) isn’t wisdom at all. Previous passages from Proverbs have already shown that losing fear in the Lord begins with a rejection of true knowledge and wisdom.

b.     John 14:26 says that a helper (Holy Spirit) will come and teach us all things

                                        i.     This shows that the Holy Spirit teaches us and brings to light all things

                                      ii.     It is true, direct illumination from the Spirit – we have no need of reasoning

                                     iii.     Response:

1.     The context shows that this is solely in reference to the disciples so that they might remember the words of Christ

2.     If this were the case – that the Spirit would teach us all things – then there would be no need for the Bible; the Spirit would tell us

c.      1 John 2:27 says we will have no need for any teacher, that the Spirit will teach us all things

                                        i.     The Spirit will teach us all Spiritual truths, He is our teacher

                                      ii.     Any attempt to teach a rational faith, or use philosophy, is an attempt to supplant the Holy Spirit

                                     iii.     Response:

1.     If we don’t need a teacher, then why is John being a teacher?

2.     Why is there a spiritual gift of teaching?

3.     John was referring to the proto-Gnostics who taught there was a need of a teacher to lead a pupil into special knowledge. Believers, therefore, have no need for additional knowledge from some special teacher.

4.     The context (warning against false teachers leading people astray) fits with this explanation

IV)          Conclusion

a.     Philosophy is extremely beneficial for spiritual growth, especially in growing in fear of the Lord

b.     Philosophy is an aid in breaking down intellectual barriers to conversion – it works within Apologetics (along with evidence) as pre-evangelism

c.      Christians should be careful about synthesizing – this is where the value of Sola Scriptura comes in