~5 min read
Highlights from “The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics” by Michael
Kruger, TMSJ 12/1 (Spring 2001) 69-87
p. 69 – A neutral beginning point is impossible because of a disagreement with unbelievers over the nature of knowledge. Neutrality is ineffective because it grants autonomy to the unbeliever by releasing him from the authority of the Bible. Since the Bible is sufficient for apologetics, Christians should attack the unbeliever’s worldview in addition to defending his own.
p. 70 – It is naïve and absurd (in the interest of neutrality) for Christians to put the authority of the Word “on the shelf” while they argue for Christianity, but doing so will deny the very thing they are setting out to prove, namely that God’s Word should be the authority over every area of thought (including apologetics). (At this point Kruger also mentions the value of introducing extra-biblical data/evidences into a discussion.)
p. 71 – What fact in the universe is more certain than the Scriptures? (See 1 Peter 3:15.)
Modernity is the celebration of human autonomy.
p. 72 – So be careful about making science the starting point in the hope of gaining credibility. In an effort to show that Christianity ‘passes’ the scientific test they insist that scientific evidence should decide the debate. But that is letting modernity set the criteria for truth: reason and science. God has given an exhaustive testimony of what original sin has done to the mind and will of man. Be careful of being naïve about the bias sinners have against the light. If you begin the debate assuming neutrality; you are not faithful to God’s testimony of the human condition.
p. 75 – Jesus declared that neutrality is impossible. One serves one master or the other (Matt 6:24).
p. 76 – John Frame notes that there is no purely empirical inquiry. We never encounter ‘brute’ or uninterpreted facts. We only encounter facts that have been interpreted in terms of our existing commitments (presuppositions). Thus, the debate with the non-Christian is the disagreement over the very nature of knowledge itself. The debate with non-Christians is not only a disagreement over what they claim to know, but also, due to their conflicting worldviews, a debate over their method of knowing (epistemology). (In other words, the unbeliever trusts his mind as autonomous and reliable.) Christians need to challenge the unbeliever’s philosophy of fact. That means attacking his worldview as much as the conclusions of his worldview.
Ask yourself, “is my use of evidences an attempt to meet the unbeliever’s criterion for truth?” Don’t stop there! Use the Word of God to challenge your opponent’s criteria for truth by showing him that his criterion should be the Word of God.
p. 77 – When man became a sinner, he made himself, not God, the ultimate or final point of reference. Therefore, our apologetics must deal with what Scripture reveals; namely that man is adamantly biased against God. Do not bow to the unbeliever’s plea that both sides should begin as neutral. You have already lost the debate if you do so. And, do not accept the unbeliever’s claim that ‘facts speak for themselves’. (Remember that facts are joined to their interpretation—the prior commitments of those who cite them.)
p. 78 – To grant neutrality is to tacitly grant autonomy. It makes man the ultimate epistemological authority and not the Bible. Such a posture is abhorrent to God who proclaims Himself as the ultimate authority of the universe and condemns man’s quest for independence and intellectual self-sufficiency (1 Sam 2:3; Is 40:25; Prov 1:7).
p. 79-80 – Proverbs 1:7 claims that unless one fears God from the outset and subjects his mind to God’s way of thinking, then he can know nothing at all. If the method of communication suggests that he should believe the Bible only because it has received the stamp of approval from science, archaeology, and historical criticism—those disciplines, not the Bible, will be his ultimate authority. (Human judgment will still be thought to be the ultimate authority—Richard Pratt.)
We must think like Christians and appeal to Christian principles even when we argue for the truth of Christian position. This is the essence of arguing presuppositionally. This is the only way to be consistent with the Bible’s claims that it and nothing else is the supreme and ultimate intellectual standard of the universe.
p. 81 – (See Kruger on this page for the Bible’s self-attesting authority.) A certain amount of circularity is necessary; for the Bible is the truth and the criterion for truth. If we stake the truth of the Bible on anything other than its own self-attesting authority, then the Bible ceases to be the ultimate criterion for truth and it is replaced with another ultimate criterion.
p. 82 -- The believer must defend God’s Word as the ultimate starting point, the unquestionable authority, the self-attesting foundation of all thought and commitment. God refuses to take the role of defendant and to be cross-examined by man. Instead He goes on the offensive and calls unbelievers, ‘fools’ (Ps 14:1) who are bound by futile thinking (Eph 4:17-19).
p. 83 – Only Christian worldview provides the necessary foundation and conditions for rationality and knowledge (and the necessary preconditions for knowledge, science, logic, and morality—these are only intelligible and coherent within the framework of Christianity (see Kruger here on moral absolutes, the uniformity of nature, etc.).
p. 84 – A Christian can defend his ultimate presuppositions (faith commitments) by the impossibility of the contrary. (Note Kruger this page on the coherency and meaning of life must be ‘borrowed’ from Christian worldview by the unbeliever.)
p. 85 – The natural man’s love of his imagined autonomy means that the last thing he wants to hear is that he is dependent upon God for knowledge. He is violently opposed to the fact that he needs God in order to have knowledge. His intellectual rebellion is seen in his mindset which views God as an interesting proposition which he may evaluate by his own independent standards—and not as the Lord of the universe demanding intellectual repentance. p. 86 – Apologetics at its core is a battle of worldviews. Christians are not defending a generic ‘god’ or vague theism. They are advocates of a distinctively Christian perspective of reality. The defender of the faith therefore understands the sufficiency of Scripture. No other epistemological justification for the Bible’s truth exists other than its own self-attesting authority. If Christians insist on a neutral starting point and fail to challenge their opponents’ intellectual loyalties (presuppositions), the results will hardly be a surprise: non-Christian presuppositions will lead to non-Christian interpretations and ultimately to non-Christian conclusions.