02.03. THE REVELATIONAL CONQUEST

Presuppositional Confrontations 3. The Revelational Conquest

Paul’s speech to the Athenians in Acts 17:1-34 is a wonderful piece of philosophical preaching. While the modern man tends to have an aversion to all things intellectual and philosophical, the apostle Paul does not share this attitude. For a biblical verse on this subject, Colossians 2:8 is as clear as any: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

He warns us about "hollow and deceptive" philosophy, but some people misconstrue this as a warning against philosophy itself. However, Paul also warns us about false doctrines, but only the most stupid individuals would take this as a warning against all doctrines, that is, even biblical doctrines. This verse is saying that we should reject man-centered philosophy, and instead adopt a Christ-centered philosophy. Paul implies his approval of a philosophy that depends on Christ as its foundation and tells us to reject any philosophy that is built on another principle; therefore, the Bible approves of only an explicitly Christian philosophy, and not even theism in general.

While non-Christian religions and philosophies are ultimately built upon nothing more than human speculation, Christian philosophy has divine revelation as its foundation. In philosophical terms, this is not a form of fideism, but a form of foundationalism, or to be exact, it is biblical or revelational foundationalism. As every system of philosophy has its first principle or starting point, so no one can forbid the Christian from presupposing biblical infallibility as its first principle; scriptural revelation is the starting point of our philosophy. Of course, adherents to non-Christian religions and philosophies may choose to attack our faith. We are not afraid of them. Rather, although God has already commissioned us to invade the world with his divine weapons - thus we have divine license to preach - the non-Christians’ relentless attacks against the Christian faith grant us even the social license to respond with a comprehensive and terminal assault against all of their non-biblical beliefs.

Paul tells us that "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing" (1 Corinthians 1:18). But this does not mean that they are right; it does not mean that the gospel is indeed foolish. 1 Corinthians 1:25 says, "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength." Non-Christians are not competing against our wisdom, but they are competing against God’s wisdom, and even the "foolishness" of God is wiser than anything that unbelievers can come up with.

We triumph over non-Christian religions and philosophies not by human sophistry or eloquent presentation, but by the sheer superiority of the content of our philosophy, or the biblical worldview. Paul explains: For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1:19-21)

God’s revelation has made foolishness of the wisdom of this world. Therefore, our task is not to make biblical propositions appear true from non-Christian perspectives, but it is to refute the non-Christian perspectives themselves. Instead of saying that they are wrong by only a little, we are saying that they are completely wrong, and wrong from start to finish in their religions and philosophies. This is why they must change their very perspectives or frameworks, and not just see things a little more clearly from the same fatally flawed perspectives or frameworks. And this means that not all approaches to or positions on apologetics and evangelism are correct. Specifically, we must rule out all approaches that compromise biblical content in their attempts to defend Christianity. We must never depend on "the basic principles of this world" to defend Christ. On the final page of his book, Humble Apologetics, John G. Stackhouse, Jr. writes, "We Christians do believe that God has given us the privilege of hearing and embracing the good news, of receiving adoption into his family, and of joining the Church. We do believe that we know some things that other people don’t, and those things are good for them to hear. Above all, we believe that we have met Jesus Christ." This is fine, but what follows is horrible: "For all we know, we might be wrong about any or all of this. And we will honestly own up to that possibility. Thus whatever we do or say, we must do or say it humbly."1

What he says here is unbiblical and outrageous! He has just stated what represent some of the central claims of the biblical gospel message, and that he affirms these claims as true, so when he says that "we might be wrong about any or all of this," he necessarily implies that Scripture itself might be wrong about any or all of this. However, since the Bible itself does not admit that it "might be wrong about any or all of this," when Stackhouse says that he "might be wrong about any or all of this," he is no longer defending the Bible. Of course, his emphasis is that he himself might be wrong that the Bible is the revelation of God, but this still returns to the point that if this is what he means, then he is no longer defending the Bible. He is saying that he might be wrong when he says that the Bible is right, which translates into him saying that the Bible might be wrong. Because he is saying that he might be wrong when he affirms that the Bible is true, so that the Bible might in fact be false after all, he is no longer doing biblical apologetics. The Bible itself says that we can know with certainty that what we believe is true when we affirm what it teaches:

Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:3-4)

I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. (John 17:6-8)

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see….And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Hebrews 11:1; Hebrews 11:6)

If the Bible itself claims to be the revelation of God and therefore completely true, then by what standard of humility does Stackhouse call his less than certain approach to apologetics "humble"? Since the Bible is the ultimate standard of ethics, it also defines humility; therefore, when Stackhouse implies that the Bible itself might be wrong, he is not being humble, but arrogant - so arrogant that he says he might be wrong if he affirms what God reveals. According to biblical standard, it is not humble to say that you might be wrong when you affirm what the Bible affirms; instead, you are arrogant if you say that the Bible might be wrong. For Stackhouse to assume the identity of a Christian and then say that his religion might be wrong is to say that Christianity might be wrong; therefore, instead of doing apologetics - humble or not - he is in fact attacking Christianity. If the Bible is the word of God, then to say that we might be wrong about it being the word of God is not humility, but blasphemy. If Stackhouse admits that he himself does not have certainty, then we may perhaps still accept him as a weaker brother, but when he says that we should not ever claim certainty, then he has made himself an enemy of Christ.

Rather than saying that we must "own up to that possibility" that we might be wrong, we must insist on the impossibility that we are wrong when we are affirming what the Bible teaches. When we affirm what the Bible affirms, it is impossible that we are wrong. If Stackhouse is so "humble," he must also confess that he might be wrong when he says that he might be wrong about Christianity, for how can he be so sure there is "that possibility" that Christians can be wrong who affirm the Bible? Is he fallible when he affirms that Bible, but infallible when it comes to "that possibility"? How arrogant!

Stackhouse’s position is unbiblical and irrational; therefore, let us reject such pretended humility, unfaithful spirituality, and asinine pseudo-scholarship in exchange for an approach to apologetics that is biblical, which is one that says, "We are right, and we are sure that we are right. You are wrong, and we are sure that you are wrong." If this biblical position brings the world’s reproach, then so be it; let the unbelievers try to defeat us in argumentation. On the other hand, if you who claim to be a Christian are so drunk with "tolerance" that you prefer to adopt Stackhouse’s anti-biblical stance, then why not go all the way and stop calling yourself a Christian? The point is that your approach to defending the Bible must be consistent with the Bible itself. If you contradict biblical claims in your very approach to defending biblical claims, then you are really no longer defending biblical claims. When arguing about religion, why must Christians pretend to be non-Christians, and then from there argue to the truth of Christianity, when the atheists, agnostics, the Muslims, and the Buddhists never pretend to be Christians, and from there argue to their respective beliefs? Many Christians have been tricked. The basic stance of the Christian in apologetics and evangelism, then, is one of extreme opposition to all non-Christian thought. Now, I never said that we must be hostile in our mannerisms, although some will doubtless misunderstand me this way. Rather, we can be very polite, or act in such a manner as wisdom dictates. However, we must never yield an inch of intellectual ground - not an inch. This is the biblical attitude. As for the content of preaching, Paul’s example in Acts 17:1-34 is very informative. In philosophical terms, he addressed the topics of epistemology, metaphysics, religion, biology, history, and ethics. In theological terms, he addressed the topics of revelation, theology proper, creation, providence, anthropology, ethics, christology, soteriology, and eschatology. Depending on the vocabularies we are using to describe it, his speech resembles a basic outline for systematic philosophy or systematic theology.2

Since "Paul’s approach was to accentuate the antithesis between himself and the philosophers,"3 and since the content of his speech is rather comprehensive, it follows that a biblical approach to apologetics must demonstrate our comprehensive opposition to pagan beliefs, and our constructive presentation must likewise be thorough, covering all major topics. One implication is that those who do not have a basic grasp of what we now call systematic theology cannot do apologetics or evangelism in a sufficiently biblical manner. In connection to evangelism, Jesus tells his disciples, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). Teach them everything? Most Christians today hardly know anything about biblical doctrines and how they all fit together. But such comprehensive biblical knowledge is the prerequisite of a comprehensive preaching ministry, which is what Jesus demands here. Since biblical apologetics and evangelism require comprehensive understanding of at least the basics of theology, those who are without such knowledge cannot rightly claim to be doing biblical apologetics and evangelism. As evident in Acts 17:1-34, there are often constraints imposed upon us by time and other factors. But as circumstances allow, we must offer a systematic and comprehensive presentation of the biblical worldview, and a systematic and comprehensive refutation of the non-biblical worldviews represented by the hearers. Our goal should be nothing short of a complete vindication of Christian claims, and a thorough annihilation of non-Christian beliefs. This may be done over the course of days or even months. And in some situations, it is done over the course of many years, as should be the case in parenting our children. Sometimes, we may only have half an hour, but whatever the case may be, we should seek to cover the major points, that is, to preach "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27, NKJ). While doing all of this, we must make clear that we are only loyal to the biblical foundation and heritage, and not a pagan foundation or heritage.

Jude says, "Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 1:3). Apologetics is so important that although this apostle wants to write about soteriology, he decides to talk about defending the faith instead. It is time for Christians to stand up and meet the challenge, and it is time that Christians compel non-Christians to stand up and meet the presuppositional challenge of biblical apologetics and evangelism. It is time that you speak to the ignorant unbelievers around you, not from a non-biblical intellectual foundation, but from a revelational foundation, so that from a position of authority and knowledge you may proclaim to them what they do not know.

If we are committed to a faithful application of the biblical approach to apologetics and evangelism, then we will always win and never lose when confronting unbelievers, and Christian scholarship will spell the doom of all non-Christian systems, by which the reprobates attempt to justify their unbelief and disobedience.

Most Christians are not aggressive enough, even if they know something about biblical apologetics and evangelism. We can all take a lesson from the exchange between Elisha and Jehoash:

Now Elisha was suffering from the illness from which he died. Jehoash king of Israel went down to see him and wept over him. "My father! My father!" he cried. "The chariots and horsemen of Israel!" Elisha said, "Get a bow and some arrows," and he did so. "Take the bow in your hands," he said to the king of Israel. When he had taken it, Elisha put his hands on the king’s hands. "Open the east window," he said, and he opened it. "Shoot!" Elisha said, and he shot. "The LORD’s arrow of victory, the arrow of victory over Aram!" Elisha declared. "You will completely destroy the Arameans at Aphek." Then he said, "Take the arrows," and the king took them. Elisha told him, "Strike the ground." He struck it three times and stopped. The man of God was angry with him and said, "You should have struck the ground five or six times; then you would have defeated Aram and completely destroyed it. But now you will defeat it only three times." (2 Kings 13:14-19)

God has given us divine weapons with which to destroy all non-Christian religions and philosophies (2 Corinthians 10:3-5), but what are we doing with them?4 As Elisha was angry with Jehoash for not being aggressive and thorough enough, so would this man of God be very angry with most of us today; he would have no patience for our "tolerance" and propriety. But God is faithful to himself and to his people, and he has preserved some of us who have not bowed the knee to relativism, pluralism, and other non-biblical perspectives. We who know our God will do great things in his name. We will ceaselessly attack non-Christian religions and philosophies with biblical argumentation and persistent prayer. We will strike them again and again. When they run, we will pursue them; when they hide, we will expose them; and when they fall, we will trample them. We will not make Jehoash’s mistake, who struck three times and stopped - we will never stop. When we finally learn to fight by the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, we will find that unbelieving thought really has no defense against our assaults; we will be an invincible army, and the very gates of hell will not be able to stand against us.

Endnotes:

1. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today; Oxford University Press, 2002; p. 232.

2. Some of the points are not developed in detail, but this is to be expected under the circumstances and constraints Paul faces.

3. Bahnsen, Always Ready; p. 272.

4. These are spiritual or intellectual weapons, expressed in the form of preaching and arguments. For more works by Vincent Cheung go to Reformation Ministries International