When it comes to defending your faith with others, there are a few major schools of thought. What is perhaps today the most popular form of Apologetics (defending your faith) is what we call Evidential Apologetics. Evidential Apologetics is a style of defending the Christian faith where the Christian utilizes a variety of “evidences” for Christianity to attempt to convince the unbeliever that Christianity must be true. While these evidences are powerful tools, we must think about them Biblically and be certain not to overly rely on them when discussing the Gospel with unbelievers. I will argue that evidences do have their place in our tool belt, but we will be wiser to rely on a different form of persuasion that I believe to be more effective and more in line with scripture, Presuppositional Apologetics.
Let’s start by first evaluating Evidential Apologetics. Evidential Apologetics essentially attempts to get the nonbeliever to confess that based on the evidence available, Christianity is the most likely explanation when compared against all the other options. It’s a bit like saying to a nonbeliever, “Here is evidence that shows you that God more than likely does exist,” or that, “Jesus more than likely did raise from the dead.” This sounds initially great, but it is riddled with challenges. Below are four core challenges with relying solely on evidences for the hard of work Apologetics.
- Is Christianity Possibly Not True: In talking about the Gospel in language like, “the evidence shows that it is more than likely true,” we are simultaneously saying that it is possibly not true. This is a far cry from what Christians actually believe. We do not live in a world where Jesus may have raised from the dead, we live in a world where Christ certainly did rise from the dead. As Greg Bahnsen says,
“We must not be satisfied to present Christianity as the most reliable position to hold among the competing options available. Rather, the Christian faith is the only reasonable outlook available to men.”
2. There is Too Much Evidence to Know: Relying solely on Evidences is a massively difficult lift for most lay Christians to manage for the simple reason that there is an overwhelming amount of access to data and evidence on every subject. There is in fact too much data for any one person to know and be able to confidently converse with in every category of possible debate. Often times when relying solely on evidences, the Christian will present their evidence only to be countered by opposing “evidence” they had never considered. Attempting to know every potential counter-claim is exhausting work.
3. Theism Doesn’t Save a Person: Much of Evidential Apologetics is attempting to move a person from Point A (atheism, postmodernism, etc.) towards theism (the belief that a God does exist). For example, the use of the Cosmological Argument (that provides evidence for a creator-God based on the fact that we’re here and something had to create all that we see) is a compelling reason to believe that a God does exist. The problem is that salvation is not dependent on being a theist, rather salvation is dependent on knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Moving from Atheism to Theism is a massive jump in a good direction, but there still exists an even bigger jump from Theism is to Christianity.
4. Interpretation Issues: Additionally, there are interpretation issues. Imagine for a moment that you lay out a perfect presentation of the overwhelming evidence that suggests that Jesus Christ really was killed and really did rise from the grave. Your presentation is so air tight that your listeners are convinced that Jesus really did rise from the grave. You enthusiastically pat them on the back and say, “You’re a Christian now!” But they look back at you with a confused look and say something along the lines of, “Well not really. All this proves is that somehow, he came back from the dead. I’m sure it has been done by others throughout history.” The problem here is one of interpretation. As a Christian standing on the Word of God, you know the proper interpretation of the resurrection, namely that it demonstrates that Jesus really is Lord and Savior. But a non-Christian who is not standing on God’s Word may apply any number of false interpretations to the same evidence. Without a true change of the heart, a born-again experience, all the evidence in the world will not make a person an authentic follower of Christ.
Starting Points
When a Christian approaches questions of God, Scripture, and meaning of life, we do so from a particular starting point, or presupposition. We presuppose that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. The nonbeliever, on the other hand, begins by presupposing the Bible is not true. In other words, everybody has a starting point, a set of presuppositions that they hold to be true, not because they have been rigorously tested by science, but rather they are starting points assumed by faith, the atheist no less than the Christian. An atheistic starting point might begin with the presupposition that the Bible is not God’s Word. How does the atheist know this? Not by science, but by assumption, by faith, a belief in a principle beyond where science can take you. We all have presuppositions.
The challenge is that the nonChristian presuppositions are bent in such a way that while standing upon them one will never arrive at the truth of salvation by Christ alone. In other words, it is only by abandoning one’s original presuppositions that one can begin to believe truth about God. Why is this?
According to a proper Christian theological worldview, the nonbeliever is in a totally depraved state and is incapable of interpreting truth accurately (in terms of God’s objective interpretation of all truth). A simple example may be the way a believer and a nonbeliever see a radiating sunset. The believer cries out, “The heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1),” while the nonbeliever thinks nothing of God in the moment. The two people are having the same experience while sharing two radically different interpretations. “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).”
The application of this doctrine (of the sin-caused corruption of the heart and mind) means that we must not expect nonbelievers to be able to interpret evidences correctly. In fact, we must assumed that a nonbeliever will not be able to interpret the evidence correctly. Herein lies the challenge. When the Christian makes their primary case for Christ by appealing to evidences, there is no hope whatsoever of those evidences being interpreted correctly.
The essential passage that develops this idea historically is Romans 1:19-23. It reads,
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” Romans 1:19-23
The condition of a nonbeliever is not one of not having enough evidence to believe. Romans 1:19 explicitly states that deep down inside the nonbeliever already knows about God and His invisible attributes. The nonbeliever, according to the Bible is in a state of, “suppressing the truth.” What will a nonbeliever do with more evidence? He will simply suppress it. It is not an ‘Evidence Issue;’ rather it is a ‘Starting Point Issue.’ The non-believer needs a heart change to be able to interpret the evidence correctly. The real issue is one of Starting Points or what we call Presuppositions.
This is why the prophets in the Bible never attempted to prove that God existed in their preaching. Rather they simply assumed he existed. The prophet then spoke God’s Word clearly, and allowed God do the internal work of changing hearts. As you can see, the real battle is not over evidence (the evidence is overwhelmingly—in fact perfectly—in the Christians court), rather it is over our starting points which will ultimately dictate how we interpret the evidence. We must not abandon our starting point in attempting to prove that God is true. We must not attempt to adopt the worldview of the unbeliever and then reason with them on their terms. In other words, we do not assume the position of saying, “God may or may not exist, but let’s look at the facts together neutrally and see where they lead us?” The idea of ‘neutrality’ is a myth.
Rather, we must stand firm on our starting point—the Word of God—and build all of our argumentation from it. Evidences may play a part of our overall conversation, but these evidences are not the driving thrust of how we debate or discuss. Rather than rely on Evidential Apologetics, we should stress an apologetic consistent with our theology. Prioritizing Presuppositional Apologetics, the Christian never leaves their own worldview. They reason and think from the Word of God and permit the Holy Spirit to use our position of conviction on the issues and the power of the Word of God to change a person’s heart. We respond to real questions with God’s Word, because we presuppose that God’s Word is true. We do the hard work of exposing the fault lines and inconsistencies of the other person’s worldview, and then we offer the Christian worldview as the true and proper option. A nonbeliever may be blind to the lunacy of their own worldview. But a faithful Christian does not entertain another’s lunacy, they shepherd through it to help them find the sanity on the other side.
This is an excellent article.