Biblical Philosophy: 2 Born Again Knowing

Table of Contents

1 Born Again Philosophy

2 Born Again Knowing

3 Born Again Believing

4 Born Again Reasoning

5 Born Again Learning

6 Born Again Certainty

7 A Critique of Historical Skepticism

8 A Critique of Reformed Epistemology

9 A Critique of Rationalism

10 A Critique of Fideism

11 A Critique of Postmodernism

12 Reason & Apologetics

Appendix A Detailed Contents

Chapter 2.2

Born Again Knowing

The Divine Power for Believing

Overall Objective

To demonstrate the need to be born again in order to understand spiritual truth.

Table of Topics

A) The Bible Begins Boldly

B) We Will Not Know the Truth Until We Know The Truth

C) The Power of God for Salvation is the Gospel, Not Apologetics

D) Born Again Believing

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

The Bible itself begins unapologetically in Genesis 1:1.

Scripture presupposes the validity of Scripture, language, and reasoning because its intended audience is born again Christians.

The epistemological difference between born again Christians and the rest of humanity can hardly be overstated, yet is often ignored.

Humans need a different kind of “heart,” to know God than the one they are born with, and only God can give it to them.

The fact that demonic forces are the fundamental cause of the dysfunctional reason of the unregenerate is well attested in Scripture.

There are two kinds of people on planet Earth: Those with devil-darkened reason and those with Spirit-liberated reason; those spiritually “dead in transgressions” and those He has “made [spiritually] alive” (Eph 2:5). And the difference between them in terms of their ability to recognize, receive, and believe spiritual truth is like night and day.

By virtue of their spiritual rebirth only Christians possess correct insight into spiritual things, which are also the most important things.

We need not, and cannot prove to a skeptic that we know the truth, because until they know The Truth like we do, they will remain blind to what we see.

“Apologetics” was not a part of Christ’s and the Apostles’ approach to evangelism, all of whom had a very unapologetic attitude about the Gospel.

Spiritual regeneration renews all of the components of human knowledge to their original, God-given design.

A) The Bible Begins Boldly

It is fashionable these days to insist that a discussion of ultimate truths, like a systematic theology, must begin with apologetics. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology states: “A subdivision of Christian theology, apologetics is a systematic, argumentative discourse in defense of the divine origin and the authority of the Christian faith.” [1] Such an approach involves the offering of rational proofs for the existence of God before talking about God, or an initial defense of presuppositions such as there is truth and falsehood, that human language can accurately convey knowledge, and that Scripture is a divinely authoritative source for ultimate truth. As we will argue elsewhere, such an apologetic introduction to ultimate truths would be unbiblical even if our target audience were unbelievers, [2] but it is certainly misplaced in a writing designed to benefit believers. We already know that God exists and that the above presuppositions are true.

Not only is an apologetic introduction to systematic theology misplaced, but we would suggest that such an approach would fail to follow God’s own approach to the topic. In other words, in a world in which agnostic skeptics and postmodern philosophers have convinced Christians that they must introduce any claim to truth with a lengthy apologetic discourse, it is both refreshing and corrective to be reminded that God’s own written presentation of truth begins very unapologetically and remains so. It is unapologetic about both the source and content of truth and about the basic presuppositions concerning the communication and recognition of truth.

For example, the first sentence of the most effective and influential communication of ultimate truth ever written says, “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth” (Gen 1:1). Whether you agree with the first sentence of Christian Scripture or not, all have to agree that the Bible begins boldly. As the Christian theologian Bernard Ramm remarked, “The Scriptures are nowhere concerned with the theistic proof or proofs for the existence of God, such as are found throughout the history of philosophy and theology.” [3]

Of course the world is filled with people who are claiming that no one can really know the truth about anything, and that we can’t trust the Bible, our reason, or even human language itself to convey actual facts that correspond with reality. In answer to such nonsense, Holy Scripture not only begins with a statement of bare fact, but also with a presupposition that such things as Scripture, reason, and human language were also created in order that truth may be conveyed and confirmed to humanity.

Accordingly, while many are claiming that human knowledge cannot contain dogmatic assertions, the Bible begins with one, implying that some ideas correspond with reality and others simply don’t. The Psalmist believed the same when he said: “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God”” (Ps 14:1). It is not that there are several options, all of which can be true. Rather, to deny the existence of God exposes a person as an intellectual and moral failure, regardless of what such a “fool” might think of themselves. The philosophers can deny it, but even common sense tells us that some things are absolutely true and some things are absolutely false.

Secondly, the Bible begins boldly by asserting that it is the ultimate source of truth. There is no other place in the cosmos, whether it is in the far reaches of a distant galaxy, or the deepest depths of the human mind, where you will discover Who ultimately created all that we see. No amount of human philosophy or space exploration could ever answer the question that the Bible answers in just one sentence, and its first sentence.

Thirdly, the Bible begins boldly by asserting that truth can be communicated adequately through human language, and this is, in fact, the method that God has chosen to communicate all the truths that humanity is responsible for knowing.

Finally, the Bible begins boldly by communicating a divine expectation and desire for us to know things. God wants us to know He created the Universe and He expects all humanity to do so. Contrary to the philosophers of our day, there are some things that we are supposed to know with certainty. Along these lines the Apostle Paul wrote:

The wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–His eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom 1:18-20)

For those who suggest that we really can’t know anything, God says we had better know some things because He is going to severely and eternally punish people for not knowing them. And such punishment will be just, because regardless of the creative philosophical excuses that are espoused, God created humanity and its environment such that we are “without excuse” for being ignorant of certain things, such as the first sentence of Scripture. The Creator has intentionally designed both humanity and the Creation in order for humans to know things, and more particularly, according to Romans 1, to know that He exists. [4]

Additional sources of knowledge that are presupposed by the Scriptures include Prophets and Apostles, miracles, and historical testimony. For example, Christ claimed to possess divine revelation when He said, “I did not speak of My own accord, but the Father Who sent Me commanded Me what to say and how to say it” (John 12:49). He claimed that His authority was legitimately authenticated by His miracle working when He said, “The miracles I do in My Father’s name speak for Me” (John 10:25). [5] Certainly Christ’s resurrection from the dead is intended by God to be supernatural proof that The King was a source of truth that all humanity is accountable to heed. Finally, proof of the resurrection comes from historical testimonies, another source of truth that God intends for us to value. [6]

The Scriptures also reflect a dependence on a person’s reasoning to effectively identify, receive, evaluate, and act upon information. [7] The existence of Creation, and what God expects to be communicated by it, is through the God-given senses and reasoning faculties of humans. [8] The Apostle Paul says God has made His “invisible qualities” “plain” to humanity simply because Creation has “been clearly seen” and therefore, humanity has “understood” with their mind and reasoning what God intended to communicate through these physical means, “so that men are without excuse” (Rom 1:19-20). Humanity does not need a “spiritual” or “mystical” revelation of God to be without excuse. God knows that humanity’s senses and reason are adequate processors of knowledge and data. And it is because of humanity’s rebellion that these God-given epistemological tools have become “futile” and “darkened” (Rom 1:21). [9]

We see then that the Scriptures themselves presuppose the value of several different sources of knowledge including Scripture, Creation, human language, divine messengers, miracles, and historical research. In addition, it anticipates the use of our reasoning faculties and conscience to process such knowledge to form convictions. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to begin a systematic theology with the same presuppositions, because our primary target audience is the same as that of the Bible: spiritually born-again believers who know these things are true. [10]

Pastoral Practices

  • We should never lack boldness in preaching the truths of God’s word, nor need we always be concerned to prove them to skeptics. Here we are reminded of the Apostle’s exhortation to Timothy:

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, Who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of His appearing and His kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. (1 Tim 4:1-3)

Notice that in the presence of a culture that will “not put up with sound doctrine” we are still not to pander to their whims but preach the truth in love. That is our God-given responsibility, not to be winsome to every person’s perspective, be it postmodern or otherwise.

B) We Will Not Know the Truth Until We Know The Truth

The epistemological difference between born again Christians and the rest of humanity is considerable, though often forgotten or ignored. George Whitefield’s journal entry for January 29, 1739 illustrates his own recognition of the epistemological gap between those with the Spirit and those without:

Sat up till near one in the morning, with my honoured brother and fellow-labourer, John Wesley, in conference with two clergymen of the Church of England, and some other strong opposers of the doctrine of the New Birth. God enabled me, with great simplicity, to declare what He had done for my soul, which made them look upon me as a madman . . .

I am fully convinced there is a fundamental difference between us and them. They believe only an outward Christ, we further believe that He must be inwardly formed in our hearts also. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him. [11]

Imagine that meeting! Two of the most powerful Evangelists in all the history of humanity urging, pleading, and arguing with these men into the night. And yet it was of no use.

The King reflected Whitefield’s point when He told the religious leader Nicodemus in a statement that is loaded with both apologetic and epistemological implications: “I tell you the truth, no one can see [idein: know, perceive, understand] the Kingdom of God unless he is born again” (John 3:3). Accordingly, noted NT scholar Merrill C. Tenney writes, “The implication in John 3:3 is that without spiritual rebirth one cannot even perceive the reality of the kingdom of God.” [12]

The epistemological difference between people was a common theme of Christ’s teachings, including when He said:

The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matt 6:22-23).

The “eyes” here are metaphorical for a capacity to correctly discern spiritual and moral truth. Contrary to postmodern thinking, the King said the epistemological “eyes” of some “are bad” resulting in a “darkness” of deception, while some “eyes are good” resulting in a fullness of epistemological and spiritual “light.” Accordingly, Christ said elsewhere, “Whoever follows Me will never walk in [spiritual] darkness” (John 8:12). He went on to say that the unregenerate who do walk in darkness, “have no room for My word” and therefore do not have the capacity to recognize or receive His truth.

This epistemological darkness is not merely natural or psychological in nature, but rather has a supernatural, demonic cause. Accordingly, the Apostle writes:

[E]ven if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age [satan] has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, Who is the image of God. (2 Cor 4:3-4)

Here the Apostle explains in the most fundamental terms why the “Gospel is veiled” and often ineffectual. [13] It is because “The god of this age [satan] has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the Gospel. Therefore, the fundamental problem is not to be naturally explained, but must be recognized to have a supernatural cause. [14]

As a matter of fact, from God’s perspective, there are only two kinds of people in the world: those spiritually “dead in transgressions” and those He has “made [spiritually] alive” (Eph 2:5). The King put it this way: there are “the people of this world” and then there are “the people of the light” (Luke 16:8). He never even hinted at any other category of humanity.

Accordingly, the Apostle Paul distinguished between believers and unbelievers in epistemological terms when he wrote:

Those who live according to the sinful nature [i.e. spiritually dead] have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit [i.e. spiritually alive] have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. (Rom 8:5) [15]

The Apostle John likewise described this universal human dichotomy when he wrote: “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:12), the former alone being “children of God” and all of the latter being “children of the devil” (1 John 3:10). There is no third kind of person, and no doubt the spiritually alive children of God have some significant advantages over the spiritually dead children of the devil when it comes to ascertaining spiritual truth.

To put it bluntly, born again Christians are an entirely different species of human being than their unregenerated counterparts. So much so that God says our old self died (cf. Rom 6:1-11). Accordingly, all regenerated Christians can say: “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20). A human being with Christ living in them is a radically different kind of human being, resulting in differences far greater than merely skin color, gender, or culture. This is because the minds, hearts, natures, desires, perspective, and abilities of spiritually regenerated humans have all been radically re-created. Thus, the Apostle Paul refers to Christians as the “enlightened” ones (Eph 1:18). [16]

The Apostle reflects this radical difference between who believers and unbelievers are when he says:

You are not the same as those who do not believe. So do not join yourselves to them. Good and bad do not belong together. Light and darkness cannot share together.  How can Christ and Belial, the devil, have any agreement? What can a believer have together with a nonbeliever? The temple of God cannot have any agreement with idols, and we are the temple of the living God. (2 Cor 6:14–16 NCV)

The early Church Father Irenaeus (c. 180) paralleled the Apostle’s distinction by dividing humanity between those who are “empty or full”:

Know that every man is either empty or full. For if he has not the Holy Spirit, he has no knowledge of the Creator; he has not received Jesus Christ the Life; he knows not the Father who is in heaven; if he does not live after the dictates of reason, after the heavenly law, he is not a sober-minded person, nor does he act uprightly: such a person is empty. If, on the other hand, he receives God, who says, “I will dwell with them, and walk in them, and I will be their God,” such a person is not empty, but full. [17]

Likewise, Martin Luther (1483-1546) wrote in his Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans:

[Saving] Faith, however, is a divine work in us which changes us and makes us to be born anew of God, John 1[:12-13]. It kills the old Adam and makes us altogether different men, in heart and spirit and mind and powers; and it brings with it the Holy Spirit. [18]

Our position here is reflected in the Apostle Peter’s own recognition of who Jesus Christ was when he said: “We believe and know that You are the Holy One of God” (John 6:69). Belief here is put before knowing, just as God’s gift of faith in Christ must precede any personal knowing of Him. This perspective was held by the early leaders in the Church after the Apostles as well. While St. Augustine (354-430) is rather famous for his statement that, “Unless you have believed you will not understand,” [19] over two hundred years earlier, Bishop Theophilus of Antioch (c. 170) had written:

God is seen by those who are enabled to see Him when they have the eyes of their soul opened: for all have eyes; but in some they are diseased and do not see the light of the sun. Yet it does not follow, because the blind do not see, that the light of the sun does not shine; but let the blind blame themselves and their own eyes. [20]

One of the more famous “blind” men of the twentieth century was Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) who wrote in his book, Why I Am Not a Christian:

God and immortality, the central dogmas of the Christian religion, find no support in science. . . . No doubt people will continue to entertain these beliefs, because they are pleasant, just as it is pleasant to think ourselves virtuous and our enemies wicked. But for my part I cannot see any ground for either.

I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian God may exist; so may the Gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they are outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore, there is no reason to consider any of them. [21]

Here is a man in spiritual darkness, and therefore blind to the reality of ultimate truths. Illustrating such a condition, the influential nineteenth century Roman Catholic theologian, John Henry Newman (1801-1890), said that when it came to spiritual realities, the unbeliever is like a blind man discoursing about colors. One biographer summarized Newman’s thoughts as follows:

If one were the only seeing-man in a country of the blind, he could not prove to the blind that there is such a thing as sight, that is, an independent source of information not available to them. If they said that his talk about colored objects is an interesting interpretation of available data and his talk of sight, an interesting conjecture, he would answer that there are colored objects and he does see them. [22]

Like Saul of Tarsus on the day of his baptism, the scales have fallen from the born again Christian’s eyes (cf. Acts 9:18), and the ultimate realities concerning God and humans have been brought into sharp focus, while for the rest, these things remain, at best, an unrecognizable blur. While a Christian cannot automatically claim superior knowledge of all things, it is by virtue of their spiritual rebirth that they possess superior insight into spiritual things, which are also the most important things. The rest of the world will never know such truth until they know The Truth and confess with their mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead (cf. Rom 10:8-10).

The anonymous author of the very ancient Christian document, The Epistle to Diognetus (c. 150-225) recognized many of the same things we are suggesting here:

For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of humanity by country, language, or custom. For nowhere do they live in cities of their own, nor do they speak some unusual dialect, nor do they practice an eccentric life-style. This teaching of theirs has not been discovered by the thought and reflection of ingenious men, nor do they promote any human doctrine, as some do . . . For this is, as I said, no earthly discovery that was committed to them, nor some mortal idea that they consider to be worth guarding so carefully, nor have they been entrusted with the administration of merely human mysteries. On the contrary, the omnipotent Creator of all, the invisible God himself, established among men the truth and the holy, incomprehensible word from heaven and fixed it firmly in their hearts . . .

Or do you accept the empty and nonsensical statements of those pretentious philosophers, some of whom said that God was fire. The very thing they are headed for, they call God! And others, water, and still others some other one of the elements created by God . . . No, these things are merely the illusions and deceit of the magicians . . . The one who thinks he knows anything, without the true knowledge that is confirmed by the life, knows nothing; he is deceived by the serpent, because he did not love life. [23]

Likewise, Martin Luther wrote:

It is not sufficient to know God . . . as philosophers write of his nature. . . . This is a natural knowledge of the senses, harmful to those who do not understand it. . . . No one understands his commands rightly unless he first be illuminated from above. [24]

John Calvin wrote a great deal on this subject, succinctly summed up when he commented: “men’s minds must of necessity be in blindness until they are enlightened by the Spirit of God.” [25] In his Institutes of the Christian Religion he writes:

Augustine so recognizes this inability of the reason to understand the things of God that he deems the grace of illumination no less necessary for our minds than the light of the sun for our eyes. [26]

Along the same lines, the Christian genius Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) wrote:

I shall not undertake to prove by natural reasons either the existence of God, or the Trinity, or the immortality of the soul, or anything of that nature; not only because I should not feel myself sufficiently able to find in nature arguments to convince hardened atheists, but also because such knowledge without Jesus Christ is useless and barren. [27]

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) wrote a great deal about what he called the epistemological “new sense” of the Christian and its resulting vast difference between the spiritual perception of those with the Spirit compared to mere natural men:

A natural man has no experience of any of those things that are spiritual; the apostle teaches us, that he is so far from it, that he knows nothing about them, he is a perfect stranger to them, the talk about such things is all foolishness and nonsense to him, he knows not what it means; 1 Cor. 2:14. . . . And to the like purpose Christ teaches us that the world is wholly unacquainted with the Spirit of God, John 14:17. . . .

[N]atural men are represented in Scripture, as having no spiritual light, no spiritual life, and no spiritual being; and therefore conversion is often compared to opening the eyes of the blind, raising the dead, and a work of creation. . . .

There is such a thing, if the Scriptures are of any use to teach us anything, as a spiritual, supernatural understanding of divine things, that is peculiar to the saints, and which those who are not saints have nothing of. It is certainly a kind of understanding, apprehending or discerning of divine things, that natural men have nothing of. . . .

[T]here [is] in the saints a kind of apprehension or perception, which is in its nature perfectly diverse from all that natural men have, or that it is possible they should have, until they have a new nature. . . . [There are] the sensations of a new spiritual sense, which the souls of natural men have not; [but] which the saints have given them in regeneration. [28]

We realize that the above statements may sound rather arrogant to some. For example, the famous English historian, Arnold Toynbee (1852-1883) wrote:

Since self-centeredness is innate in human nature, we are all inclined, to some extent, to assume that our own religion is the only true and right religion; that our own vision of Absolute Reality is the only authentic vision; that we alone have received a revelation; that the truth which has been revealed to us is the whole truth; and that, in consequence, we ourselves are “the chosen people” and the “children of light,” while the rest of the human race are gentiles sitting in darkness. Such pride and prejudice are symptoms of original sin. [29]

Likewise, the very influential liberal Anglican theologian John Macquarrie (1919-2007) has written:

The Christian believes that he himself, as one of the elect, has been rescued from this sea of error and that his mind has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit. However much he may insist that this is God’s doing and not his own, his claim is nevertheless one of the most arrogant that has ever been made. It is this kind of thing that has rightly earned for theology the contempt of serious men. [30]

Serious men maybe, but not spiritually reborn men. Those of us who have experienced the unmistakable, revolutionary, and ever increasing transformation that comes with the Holy Spirit’s invasion of our heart, soul, mind, and body, know that Dr. Macquarrie was both right and wrong. He was right to say that the spiritually regenerated person has indeed been granted the most certain knowledge of the most vital and valuable things. We know Who the Creator of the Universe is. Multitudes of people a lot smarter than us do not. We know that humanity’s ultimate purpose is to bring joy and glory to our Creator. Most of humanity lives with no purpose at all except to bring happiness and glory to themselves. We know that this Creator will one Day eternally divide all people into two groups: the forgiven and the unforgiven; and we know how to be among the forgiven. More than that, we know we are among the forgiven. Indeed, we are the most privileged people on the planet.

While the rest of the world needs to wallow in uncertainty concerning the most important questions of human existence, the born-again Christian enjoys a settled confidence in what the “Spirit of truth” (John 14:17; cf. 15:26; 16:13; 1 John 4:6) has revealed in the divinely given Scriptures. We have met the God man Plato (428-348 B. C.) was looking for millennia ago when he wrote, “We will wait for one, be he a God or an inspired man, to instruct us in our duties and to take away the darkness from our eyes.” [31]

Yet, contrary to Dr. Macquarrie, we also know that such knowledge does not “puff up” (1 Cor 8:1) as many might imagine, but rather, brings us to our knees in humble gratitude to our gracious Father, Savior, and Teacher. We are not proud of all these spiritual gifts we have received, for we know just as certainly that we have not earned them, nor ever will, but in fact have earned just the opposite with the rest of humanity. [32]

Therefore, we both confidently and humbly proclaim that God has told us secrets that others do not know, and will never know, unless God tells them too. Not that any of these things have not been “heard” physically by the multitudes. They have heard them, but, “though hearing, they do not [spiritually and savingly] hear or understand. . . . Because this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes” (Matt 13:13, 15). Without being born again by the Holy Spirit of God, any human is doomed to “always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth” (2 Tim 3:7). The reason we have heard and understand is that, “God, Who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor 4:6). As the psalmist put it, “For with You is the fountain of life; in Your light we see light” (Ps 36:9).

It is through the “rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit whom He poured out on us generously” (Tit 3:5-6), that we know things that the spiritually dead world does not know. The Apostle John simply says, “We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know Him who is true” (1 John 5:19-20). Likewise, the King said, “If anyone chooses to do God’s will [which only a spiritually born again person will do], he will find out whether My teaching comes from God or whether I speak on My own” (John 7:17).

We need not, and cannot prove to a skeptic that we know the truth, because until they know The Truth like we do, they will remain blind to what we see. In fact, while the “love” that flows through our hearts “rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor 13:6) and craves it, God describes all unregenerate “men” as those who “love delusions and seek false gods” (Ps 4:2).

Accordingly, any born again Christian who reads the philosophers has an irresistible feeling that they have never really met The Truth, nor possess the kind of Spirit-liberated reason that enables one to understand the spiritual truth that they seem to be so void of. By Spirit-liberated reason we refer to the fact that through spiritual regeneration, our sinful nature and will has been replaced by our New Nature, the indwelling Spirit, thereby allowing our mind to process truth without a God-hating nature suppressing it. [33] Unfortunately, Christian theologians have spent far too much ink answering the questions of unbelieving skeptics, without recognizing that such philosophers have primarily a spiritual need, and not an intellectual one.

Born again believing is the only kind of believing that will be true concerning the most critical spiritual realities. The Holy Spirit of God is the One who places the born again Christian in a significantly different epistemological environment than the rest of the world.

This, of course, is denied by the unregenerate and illustrated in a rather well known Hindu poem that begins:

It was six men of Indostan, to learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant, though all of them were blind,

That each by observation, might satisfy his mind.

The poem goes on to describe how each of the six blind men come in contact with a particular part of the elephant and respectively conclude that the whole animal is a leg, trunk, or ear, etc. The poem ends with:

And so these men of Indostan, disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion, exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!

The Moral:

So oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween,

Rail on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean,

And prate about an Elephant, not one of them has seen!

The suggested moral of the poem is that no human has any superiority over others when it comes to understanding ultimate realities. However, the reader should not miss one important fact in the poem itself: All the men were blind! If they were not epistemologically handicapped and could see with the means God had given them, they would have an essentially true and identical idea about what an elephant is.

We are reminded here of Christ’s epistemological description of the Pharisees when He told His disciples, “Leave them [as opposed to debating with them]; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matt 15: 14). To suggest, as many do, that all of humanity suffers from similar theological blindness, is to completely disregard the spiritual and epistemological rebirth that comes from the Holy Spirit to the believer in the King. There is a world of difference between the abilities of the Spirit-liberated reason of the Christian and the devil-darkened reason of the pagan.

Pastoral Practices

  • It is important, to the best of our ability, to discern whether or not a person we are counseling or ministering to is a true believer or not. If they are not, they will not be able to fully understand and apply whatever biblical advice you are giving them. One can enquire about their testimony, church background, spiritual journey, etc. Obviously, if it seems they may not know Christ, the most important thing they need is the Gospel and you can explain how that will help them with the problem they came to you with in the first place.


C) The Power of God for Salvation is the Gospel, Not Apologetics

As stated earlier, many contend that a presentation of Christian truth must begin with a rational defense of the superiority of its authority and sources. We would label this as intellectual apologetics in which there is an emphasis on philosophical, historical, and scientific arguments for the Christian faith. [34] For example, the popular Reformed theologian R. C. Sproul says:

Apologetics is indispensable for the establishing of [the intellectual assent to Christian truth that occurs before someone gets saved]. Though apologetics may not be evangelism, it is [apparently always] a vital part of pre-evangelism. [35]

We would respectfully disagree. In order to be saved, people need to believe in the Savior, and they can do so without believing in a Creator. People need to believe in Jesus, and that can occur without belief in the Bible. In fact, we argue elsewhere that the approach these good theologians are advocating in evangelism was emphatically denounced by the Apostle Paul, and there are no examples or exhortations to it in Scripture. [36] Accordingly, such intellectual apologetics was not a part of Christ’s and the Apostles’ approach to evangelism, all of whom had a very unapologetic attitude about the Gospel. [37]

The greatest value of intellectual apologetics is not in sparking the faith of unbelievers, but rather in building the faith of believers who can actually appreciate such evidence. [38] This, in fact, may explain the misplaced emphasis on philosophical, historical, and scientific evidences for the Christian faith as a defense of it to unbelievers. It is because such evidences are so valuable to us, that we want to assume they will be valuable to the spiritually dead, deaf, and blind people as well.

Several Scriptures are used to support the evangelistic approach of intellectual apologists. One of the foremost is 1 Peter 3:15 which, we will demonstrate elsewhere, actually supports our own emphasis on virtue apologetics, not the philosophical/scientific type. [39]

We are reminded here of the approach to evangelism that we see in the NT Church. Particularly the repeated command for unbelievers to repent, which is to admit they are morally sinful and intellectually mistaken and to change their mind to align with what God says in Scripture. This is a very politically incorrect approach in our culture of tolerating sin and error. There is a cowardly kind of Christianity which lives to please men instead of God, simply refuses to command people to repent, and congratulates itself on the public relations work it is doing for Christ. Christ does not desire to be defended, as much as He wants to be preached.

Christ would rather have us imitate Him, Who from the very beginning of His ministry, “began to preach, ‘Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near’” (Matt 4:17; cf. Luke 13:1-5), a message that in any age or culture would be considered very unapologetic. Elsewhere we read:

Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” He said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:14-15)

According to the King, the command to repent was an essential part of “the good news” of the Gospel. Which is why all of His true followers preached the same.

John the Baptist “came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, ‘Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.’” What was the result? “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River” (Matt 3:1-2, 5-6). It’s clear that John did not have much concern for accommodating his message to the minds of unrepentant unbelievers, but was after the humble who were ready to repent.

Likewise, when the King sent out His twelve disciples, giving them instructions on how to really reach the lost, “They went out and preached that people should repent” (Mark 6:12; cf. Luke 15:7). And that was the habit of His messengers thereafter. After the Apostle Peter unapologetically told a crowd in Jerusalem, “be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, Whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ,” he then commanded them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:36, 38; cf. 3:19). There was no debate here about who really was Lord, or who really was guilty.

While many claim that the Apostle Paul engaged in intellectual apologetics with the rather sophisticated Athenians, we argue otherwise elsewhere. [40] What the Apostle did tell those philosophers was this:

In the past God overlooked such ignorance [as you Athenians have], but now He commands all people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead. (Acts 17:30)

Those are statements of fact to believe, not apologetic, philosophical, or even historical evidence to prove.

The King and His messengers believed that the preparing of hearts to receive the Gospel was the Holy Spirit’s job, eliminating the need for human, intellectual apologetics (cf. John 16:8-10; Acts 16:14; 1 Cor 2:14; 1 Thess 1:4-5). Accordingly, Christ told His preachers: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town” (Matt 10:14). Notice that Christ did not imply that we are to try to persuade people to listen to us, nor certainly to argue with them. If they do not “welcome” or “listen to” our Gospel message, we are to simply leave them, apparently only communicating their condemnation as we go. [41] Again, a very unapologetic approach with no indication that the disciples were to argue with anyone. And we have record of the Apostles doing this very thing throughout their ministry (cf. Acts 13:51; 18:6).

Similarly, Christ had taught His disciples:

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. (Matt 7:6)

Bible teacher John MacArthur succinctly summarizes Christ’s meaning:

Jesus’ point is that certain truths and blessings of our faith are not to be shared with people who are totally antagonistic to the things of God. Such people are spiritual dogs and swine, who have no appreciation for that which is holy and righteous. They will take that which is holy, the pearls of God’s Word, as foolishness and as an insult. [42]

Likewise, NT scholar D. A. Carson notes here:

“Dogs” and “pigs” cannot refer to all Gentiles but, as Calvin rightly perceived, only to persons of any race who have given clear evidences of rejecting the gospel with vicious scorn and hardened contempt. The disciples are later given a similar lesson (10:14; 15:14), and the postresurrection Christians learned it well (cf. Acts 13:44-51; 18:5-6; 28:17-28; Titus 3:10-11). So when taken together vv. 1-5 and v. 6 become something of a Gospel analogue to the proverb “Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you” (Prov 9:8). [43]

None of this is a contradiction to the divine command that, “this Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations” (Matt 24:14). Indeed, there is no way for us to know if the Spirit is working on people’s hearts until we preach the Gospel to them and observe their reaction. If the “Gospel” comes “not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction” (1 Thess 1:5), then “we know . . . He has chosen” to save the people we are preaching to (v. 4). However, if after hearing the truth a person remains obstinate and hardened, that is probably not ground that God wants us to keep plowing and sowing with more of the Gospel, let alone “apologetics.” [44]

We would suggest that others have had a more biblical perspective on the matter of apologetics, then intellectual apologists. For example, Martin Luther wrote:

[I]f the people will not believe [in the authority of Scripture], then be silent; for you are not held to compel them to receive Scripture as God’s book or Word . . . [I]f they take exceptions and say: ‘You preach that one should not hold to man’s doctrine, and yet St. Peter and Paul, and even Christ, were men’ – when you hear people of this stamp, who are so blinded and hardened as to deny that what Christ and the Apostles spoke and wrote is God’s Word, or doubt it, then be silent, speak no more with them, and let them go. Only say: ‘I will give you reasons enough from Scripture; if you will believe it, it is well; if not, go your way.’

Will you say: Then God’s Word must suffer defeat? Leave that to God! . . . [It is] blasphemy [to say] ‘St. Matthew, Paul, Peter were also men; therefore their doctrine is also the doctrine of men’. . . If you hear such thoroughly hardened and blinded blasphemers, turn from them or plug your ears; they are not worthy to be spoken to. [45]

Accordingly, Dr. Timothy Lull, former Professor of Systematic Theology at Pacific Lutheran, and a recognized authority on Luther, wrote:

Luther had come to think that the trouble with the whole tradition [i.e. intellectual apologetics] that had developed from [the Roman Catholic] Thomas Aquinas was that it tended to be dominated by its opening theological moves. Since the existence of God could be shown rationally or philosophically, a style of theology developed that moved too smoothly from what could be known and comprehended clearly in creation, to the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Though Thomas himself was clear that the saving mysteries could not be known by reason, much of the energy of subsequent theology went into these foundational [intellectual apologetical] questions.

This could obscure what St. Paul had taught so forcefully: the cross of Christ is not a concept compatible with human wisdom and philosophy, but only with deep folly and offense. The cross is not inspiring but a scandal. Therefore the true theologian is not the one who argues from visible and evident things (following Aristotle), but rather the one who has learned from the cross that the ways of God are hidden (deus absconditus), even in the revelation of Jesus Christ. [46]

Along the same lines, the great Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) said:

We want again Luthers, Calvins, Bunyans, Whitefields, men fit to mark eras, whose names breathe terror in our foes’ ears. We have dire need of such. Whence will they come to us? They are the gifts of Jesus Christ to the Church, and will come in due time. He has power to give us back again a golden age of preachers, a time as fertile of great divines and mighty ministers as was the Puritan age, and when the good old truth is once more preached by men whose lips are touched as with a live coal from off the altar, this shall be the instrument in the hand of the Spirit for bringing about a great and thorough revival of religion in the land.

I do not look for any other means of converting men beyond the simple preaching of the gospel and the opening of men’s ears to hear it. The moment the Church of God shall despise the pulpit, God will despise her. [47]

Likewise, Charles Hodge wrote in his Systematic Theology:

The great complaint against the apostles, especially in the Grecian cities (i.e. Corinth, Athens; cf. 1 Cor 1-2, Acts 17), was that they did not present their doctrines as propositions to be proved; they did not even state the philosophical grounds on which they rested or attempt to sustain them at the bar of reason.

Paul gave a twofold answer to this complaint: (1) Philosophy, the wisdom of men, had proved itself utterly incompetent to solve the great problems of God and the universe, of sin and redemption. It was in fact neither more nor less than foolishness, so far as all its speculations as to the things of God were concerned.

(2) The doctrines which the apostles taught were not the truths of reason, but matters of revelation to be received not on rational or philosophical grounds, but on the authority of God. The apostles were not philosophers, but witnesses; they did not argue using the words of man’s wisdom, but simply declared the counsels of God. Faith in their doctrines, then, was to rest not on the wisdom of men, but on the powerful testimony of God. [48]

Likewise, D. M. Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981), a preacher who was known for his spiritual insight, said:

There is no hope for him [humanity] unless God in His kindness and grace and love chooses to reveal Himself. Now the full position for which we stand is that God has definitely done just this, and that until any enquirer comes to that point there is really no basis for discussion. . . .

Whatever his reason, Paul determined solemnly at Corinth ‘not to know anything among them, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified’. This was a deliberate decision, reinforced by strong determination on his part. In other words, Paul decided that he was not going to waste his time with them in arguing about presuppositions. He was not going to start with a preliminary philosophical argument and then gradually lead them on into the truth. No! He begins by proclaiming authoritatively the Lord Jesus Christ. . . .

I have an increasing feeling that we must come back to this. I fear that apologetics has been the curse of evangelical Christianity for the last twenty to thirty years. I am not saying that apologetics is not necessary. But I am suggesting that, with a kind of worldly wisdom, we have been approaching the world on the grounds of apologetics instead of (with the apostle Paul), determining not to know anything ‘save Christ crucified’. [49]

More recently, NT scholar Colin Brown has said:

Christianity was, at its inception, ‘foolishness to the Greeks’ and remains a scandal – something not readily acceptable to the ordinary reasonable man. Indeed there is something almost blasphemous in the notion that Christianity is or ought to be accepted because it ‘makes better sense’ than alternatives. Not only does it not commend itself to the contemporary world as reasonable and sensible; it ought to challenge and at times condemn our ordinary standards of what is reasonable and sensible. The God of the philosophers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. [50]

May we suggest here that one fundamental problem with some intellectual apologists is an unbiblical understanding of even how people get saved? The Bible teaches that God unconditionally (i.e. by grace) chose who would be saved “before the creation of the world” (Eph 1:4; cf. Rom 11:5-7; 1 Cor 1:26-31), and “those He predestined,” He will call and regenerate so that they may be “justified” (Rom 8:30). The process of salvation is initiated and accomplished by God, because, “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14). All we would suggest here is that many intellectual apologists give more credit to spiritually dead, deaf, and blind humans than is due, and assume more human, rather than divine ingredients in the process of conversion than is biblically warranted. [51]

The “epistemological problem” has never been, nor ever will be a philosophical one. The problem has always been, and always will be pride, not philosophy. As the Presbyterian theologian Donald Bloesch says:

Against philosophical irrationalism [of which postmodernism is an example], [Christian] theology contends that it is sin, not reason, that constitutes the major obstacle to true understanding. Against rationalism, theology says that it is not reason but divine grace that brings us into contact with ultimate reality. [52]

Along the same lines, Michael Horton has written:

It is not reason that is opposed to faith but the reasoner. . . . [E]vangelical theology holds that all of those who are not yet united to Christ through faith are spiritually dead, unable to interpret reality in a consistently faithful manner because they willfully “by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (Ro 1:18). [53]

Pride is why people won’t believe even the very first sentence of the Bible, and “When pride comes, then comes disgrace [because of foolishness], and only “with humility comes wisdom” (Prov 11:2). “Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children” (Matt 11:25). God has always been in the business of shaming the worldly wise and teaching the spiritually humble.

Humility is the key to really knowing the truth, and God ultimately holds that key. We cannot humble people, and it is only to the extent that someone is humble that they will receive, recognize, and retain the truth. While the symptoms of the epistemological disease of human pride will vary, the cure has always been the same one Christ prescribed when He preached: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near” (Matt 4:17). One will search in vain to find a modern, philosophical, intellectual apologetic approach to unbelief in the teachings of Christ. We seriously doubt that the intellectual pride of contemporary postmodernists, humanists, atheists, or other modern skeptics is any different than the arrogance and ignorance that Christ encountered, and no doubt His response would be the same today: “Repent.”

Pastoral Practices

  • Ponder Luther’s advice:

[I]f the people will not believe [in the authority of Scripture], then be silent; for you are not held to compel them to receive Scripture as God’s book or Word . . . [W]hen you hear people of this stamp, who are so blinded and hardened as to deny that what Christ and the Apostles spoke and wrote is God’s Word, or doubt it, then be silent, speak no more with them, and let them go. Only say: ‘I will give you reasons enough from Scripture; if you will believe it, it is well; if not, go your way.’

Of course there are sincere seekers who will humbly ask legitimate questions because of their ignorance, but desire to better understand. And those like this who are teachable should be ministered to. But ministers have often wasted too much time trying to convince hardened skeptics. God needs to humble them in life before they are ready to hear Him in Scripture.

  • Let us preach the simple Gospel boldly, consistently, and clearly, trusting the Holy Spirit’s desire to use it to do the supernatural work that must be done for conversion to occur. We fear, like Dr. Jones, that the great emphasis on intellectual apologetics in our day may have obscured the Gospel and distracted us from merely preaching it. Like the Apostle Paul, do not rely on human persuasion to bring about conversions, as this can lead to a lot of false conversions. Gently but firmly preach repentance as the King and the Apostles did.

D) Born Again Believing

The difference between the Spirit-liberated reason of the born again Christian, and the devil-darkened reason of the pagan, needs to be sufficiently appreciated by modern apologists, and by anyone who encounters critics of the Christian faith. As is discussed further elsewhere, Spirit-liberated reason is essential to recognizing, receiving, and interpreting particularly spiritual truth, whereas devil-darkened reason is powerless to do the same. [54] Obviously, God expects a good deal even from unaided devil-darkened reason as demonstrated in Romans 1-2. The Apostle says that God has deemed it adequate to perceive the Creator in the Creation (1:19-20), and all humans are created with moral reasoning, having “the requirements of the law . . . written on their hearts” (2:15). However, in their sin-corrupted state, neither they, nor the God-ordained data sources function properly. The truth that only comes through the Holy Spirit is not even available to unbelievers (cf. John 14:17; 1 Cor 2:14).

While the simple grammatical meaning of Scripture may be understood by the spiritually repressed mind, its spiritual meaning and real significance will remain hidden. Even the proper interpretation of the objective data that may come through scientific or historical research will be deceptively skewed by the unbeliever’s reason and conscience because, “the sinful mind is hostile to God” (Rom 8:6) Who is the Designer of Creation and the Controller of history.

Spiritual regeneration, however, renews all of these components of human knowledge to their original, God-given design. Now, instead of being q“foolishness,” the Gospel becomes the most reasonable thing in the world. The moral truths of Scripture are properly appreciated by the spiritually liberated moral reason of the Christian. Doctrinal truths such as divine Creation, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection no longer seem at all unreasonable to Spirit-liberated reason.

On the other hand, devil-darkened reason is broken, deceptive, and unreliable, particularly when it comes to any knowledge that depends on, or is related to, spiritual truth. However, Spirit-liberated reason operates as God intended, serving as a critical vehicle for truth. The Pharisees in Christ’s day proved that even miracles are ineffective in communicating what God intends if the observers do not possess the Spirit of God.

Born again believing restores the value and effectiveness of all of these God-ordained sources of knowledge and convictions. Born again believing is what God made us for. As noted above, this liberation of our mental faculties in order to recognize and receive spiritual truth is what Christ was referring to when He told the Apostle Paul, “I am sending you to them [the spiritually unregenerated] to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of satan to God” (Acts 26:17-18). As Charles Hodge put it: “The first conscious exercise of the renewed soul is faith. An apt analogy is the case of a man born blind whose eyes have been opened. His first conscious act is seeing.” [55] Or as the cherished hymn “Amazing Grace” puts it: “I was blind, but now I see.”

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our Father, thank you so much for giving us a new life, and even a new mind and new “eyes” so that we may now see, “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor 4:6). We pray earnestly for those we know and love who are still, “living in darkness” that they may see the “great light” (Matt 4:16) of the Gospel of the King. Lord, like David, we thank you that, “Blessed is the man whose sin the LORD does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit” (Ps 32:2). We are thankful for our salvation, but today we are also thankful for all the other truths you have taught us in our Christian life. Amen.

Gauging Your Grasp

  1. What are several presuppositions made in the first sentence of the Bible?
  2. What are some sources of knowledge that the Scriptures in general presuppose?
  3. How would you describe the epistemological difference between the born again Christian and the unregenerated human?
  4. What is the spiritual reason why the unregenerate are blind to spiritual truth?
  5. What are some of the most important truths that humans need to know and that only born again Christians really do know?
  6. How would you answer the charge that Christians are arrogant to claim they know the most important truths?
  7. What were some reasons given for questioning the value of the traditional approach to apologetics? Do you agree or disagree?
  8. How do we portray the Apostle Paul’s approach to the latest philosophies of his day? Do you think this is accurate?

Recommended Reading

  • Book 5: Biblical Apologetics– While in this chapter we claimed epistemological superiority for the regenerated Christian, in book 5 we offer proof for our claim.

  • Chapters 4.12-16 in Biblical Psychology– These explain further why unregenerate reason does not work correctly, demonstrating that at bottom, it is a supernatural influence of demonic spirits. These chapters also further illustrate the great difference between the reasoning abilities of the unregenerate and regenerate particularly in spiritual matters.
  • Types of Apologetic Systems by Bernard Ramm, (Van Kampen, 1953). Gives the reader a good overview of traditional approaches to apologetics. Unfortunately, we can offer no good reference to Virtue Apologetics.

Publications & Particulars

  1. A. J. Hoover, “Apologetics” in EDT, Walter Elwell ed., (Baker, 1984), 68. ↑

  2. For arguments especially from 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:5 that modern intellectual apologetics in evangelism is unbiblical see chapter ? ↑

  3. “Biblical Apologetics” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia [ISBE], Geoffrey Bromiley ed. 4 vols. [Eerdmans, 1988], I:190. ↑

  4. For further discussion of the fact that God has created Creation for knowledge of Him see Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford University Press, 2000), 498. For further discussion of the response unregenerated people have to the revelation of Creation see section 4.13.A. ↑

  5. For further discussion of the authenticating nature of miracle working see sections 3.1.D; 1.1.B.5; 1.6.F; 4.B; 3.1.B; chapters 3.9-3.12; sections 4.5.A; 5.1.F. ↑

  6. For further discussion on the God-ordained place of human testimony see section 2.5.D; 2.7.A. ↑

  7. For further discussion of the place of reason to even know reality see section 2.4.E. ↑

  8. For further discussion of the God-ordained place of human senses see section 2.5.A. ↑

  9. For more discussion of sin’s effect on reasoning see sections 4.4.C; 4.6.C.2. ↑

  10. Students of Christian philosophy and apologetics will notice our agreement with what is called presuppositional apologetics. However, we differ on some points with presuppositionalists as noted in section 2.12.D. For an excellent introduction to presuppositional apologetics see the Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics ↑

  11. The Journals of George Whitefield reprint (Banner of Truth, 1960), pp. 203-4. For similar references see pp. 350, 414, 478, 526). ↑

  12. Expositors Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. CD-ROM (Zondervan, n.d.). See also discussion of K. Dahn regarding “See” in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown ed., 4 vols., (Zondervan, 1986), III.516-17; D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans, 1991], 185-6); ↑

  13. Both C. K. Barrett (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC [Hendrickson, 1997], 130) and Colin Kruse (2 Corinthians, TNTC [Eerdmans, 1987], 103) suggest that explaining the frequent “failure” of the Gospel to convert people is the Apostle’s specific purpose in 2 Corinthians 4:1-6. ↑

  14. For further discussion of the supernatural/demonic nature of the spiritual state of the unregenerated see chapter 4.12. ↑

  15. For evidence that Romans 8:5 is contrasting believers and unbelievers instead of holy and sinful believers see section 4.14.B.3. ↑

  16. Unfortunately, the NIV and many modern translations do not reflect the perfect tense of the Greek here and give the inaccurate impression that Paul is praying that the Ephesians would yet be enlightened. On the contrary, the literal Greek reads, “the eyes of your heart having been enlightened” which reflects the fact that Paul sees the Ephesians as already possessing this enlightenment. ↑

  17. Irenaeus, Fragments, 26, online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

  18. Martin Luther, Preface to the New Testament, in Timothy Lull, Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings (Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 101. ↑

  19. Augustine, On the Trinity, XV, 2, online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

  20. Theophilus, To Autolycus, I.2. Online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

  21. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (Simon and Schuster, 1957), 50-51. ↑

  22. William R. Fey, Faith and Doubt: The Unfolding of Newman’s Thought on Certainty (Patmos Press, 1976), 193. ↑

  23. The Epistle to Diognetus 5, 7, 8, 12, in The Apostolic Fathers, 2nd ed., Michael W. Holmes ed. (Baker, 1989), 291ff. Author unknown. ↑

  24. Martin Luther, Epistle to the Hebrews, on Heb 6:13, in Works, 29 (Concordia, 1974). ↑

  25. Calvin, Commentaries, 1 Cor 2:15. ↑

  26. John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion online at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html, 2.2.25. ↑

  27. Blaise Pascal, Penseés (online at ccel.org), #556. ↑

  28. Jonathan Edwards, Treatise Concerning Religious Affections (online at http://www.ccel.org), II.1.2.; III.4.1. ↑

  29. Arnold Toynby, An Historian’s Approach to Religion (Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 301. ↑

  30. John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology (Charles Scribner, 1977), 50. Accordingly, Dr. Macquarrie wrote: “there should be an end to [Christian] proselytizing,” and believed that God has revealed Himself in many other major religions apart from Christianity (Mediators Between Human and Divine: From Moses to Muhammad, [Continuum, 1996], 2). Which is why it is unfortunate that he was Professor of Divinity at Oxford University from 1970-1986. ↑

  31. Quoted in Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Judson, 1907, 1953), 112. ↑

  32. Accordingly, R. Albert Mohler Jr. writes:

    To deny the truthfulness of God’s Word is not an act of humility, but of unspeakable arrogance. This is our proper epistemological humility-not that it is not possible for us to know, but that the truth is not our own. We are dependent upon the Word of God. Indeed, we submit ourselves to the Word of God, as believers, teachers, and preachers. And this is genuine knowledge, revealed knowledge. It is knowledge of which we are not ashamed. (“Contending for Truth in an Age of Anti-Truth” in Here We Stand, James M. Boice and Benjamin E. Sasse, eds. [Baker, 1997], 71). ↑

  33. For further discussion of the concept and importance of Spirit-liberated reason see especially chs. 4.15-16 in Biblical Psychology. Our view of Christian epistemology follows the rather famous dictum of Anselm (c. 1033-1109) who summarized his view of the topic by stating, “I believe in order to understand.”

    Along these lines, the highly respected Christian theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003) describes the three primary ways the Church has viewed epistemology, as exemplified by Tertullian (160-220), Augustine (350-430), and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).

    The Tertullian way emphasized contradiction, (I believe because it is absurd), and suggested a sharp contrast between revelational truth and philosophical knowledge because Christianity requires believing things that seem absurd to the unregenerate mind.

    The Thomistic way with its Intelligo ut credam (understand in order to believe) turned the Tertullian and Augustinian ways around. It was the Thomistic approach that opened the way for believing that philosophy or mere natural theology could discover God.

    The Augustinian way, followed by Anselm, Luther, and Calvin, believes regenerated faith to be a step toward understanding. Anselm’s Credo ut intelligam (I believe in order to understand) means that we cannot come to an understanding of God without first starting with a God given faith. Augustine saw revelation as a precondition and starting point for human understanding of God. Augustine began with Scripture and then goes to philosophy to explain and evaluate what is found there. Our own approach in Knowing Our God is generally this one. See Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority: God Who Speaks and Shows, vol. II (Word, 1976), 181-5. ↑

  34. For further discussion of intellectual apologetics see chapters 5.10-5.14. ↑

  35. R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsey in Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Academie Books, 1984), 22. ↑

  36. For further discussion of the unbiblical nature of intellectual apologetics see chapters 5.10-5.14. ↑

  37. For further discussion of Christ’s approach to evangelism see section 5.13.A. For the Apostle Paul see chapters 5.11-12 and section 5.13.B. ↑

  38. For further discussion on the value of apologetics for believers see section 6.12.C.1. ↑

  39. For an interpretation of 1 Peter 3:15 which supports virtue rather than intellectual apologetics see section 5.4.B.2. ↑

  40. For commentary on whether or not the Apostle engaged in intellectual apologetics with the rather sophisticated Athenians as many claim see section 5.13.B.4 in Biblical Apologetics. ↑

  41. D. A. Carson comments on the disciples shaking the dust off their feet as they left a town:

    For the disciples to do this to Jewish homes and towns would be a symbolic way of saying that the emissaries of Messiah now view those places as pagan, polluted, and liable to judgment (cf. Acts 13:51; 18:6). The actions, while outrageously shocking, accord with Matthew 8:11-12; 11:20-24. (“Matthew” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBC), Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. CD-ROM [Zondervan, n.d.], Matt 10:14. ↑

  42. John MacArthur, MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary (Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Parsons Technology, 1997), Matt 7:6. ↑

  43. D. A. Carson, “Matthew” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBC), Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. CD-ROM (Zondervan, n.d.), Matt 7:6. ↑

  44. John MacArthur attempts to share the balance between being discerning about how much truth we share with unreceptive people and our mandate to preach the Gospel everywhere:

    God does not call his servants to minister only where the gospel is immediately and eagerly received. Many fields of service are extremely resistant to the gospel. But the focus of ministry in any area or circumstance should be on those people who are most receptive. (Commentary, Matt 14:13)

    There is important truth in Dr. MacArthur’s words, but we would question whether or not God would perceive those who “are extremely resistant to the gospel” as a “field of service.” Jesus said if a town “will not welcome you or listen to your words . . . leave that . . . town” (Matt 10:14). Doing otherwise can be a waste of a minister’s precious time, and in the end only bring harsher judgment on such people (cf Matt 11:20-24; Luke 12:47-48).

    A careful reading of Calvin’s commentary on Matthew 7:6 seems to share the important balance. Note that even one who believed so staunchly in predestination to salvation, encouraged the diligent preaching of the Gospel.

    Christ reminds the Apostles, and, through them, all the teachers of the Gospel, to reserve the treasure of heavenly wisdom for the children of God alone, and not to expose it to unworthy and profane despisers of his word.

    But here a question arises: for he afterwards commanded to preach the Gospel to every creature, (Mark 16:15😉 and Paul says, that the preaching of it is a deadly savor to wicked men, (2 Corinthians 2:16😉 and nothing is more certain than that it is every day held out to unbelievers, by the command of God, for a testimony, that they may be rendered the more inexcusable.

    I reply: Because the ministers of the Gospel, and those who are called to the office of teaching, cannot distinguish between the children of God and swine, it is their duty to present the doctrine of salvation indiscriminately to all. Though many may appear to them, at first, to be hardened and unyielding, yet charity forbids that such persons should be immediately pronounced to be desperate.

    It ought to be understood, that dogs and swine are names given not to every kind of debauched men, or to those who are destitute of the fear of God and of true godliness, but to those who, by clear evidences, have manifested a hardened contempt of God, so that their disease appears to be incurable. In another passage, Christ places the dogs in contrast with the elect people of God and the household of faith, It is not proper to take the children’s bread, and give it to dogs, (Matthew 15:27.) But by dogs and swine he means here those who are so thoroughly imbued with a wicked contempt of God, that they refuse to accept any remedy.

    Hence it is evident, how grievously the words of Christ are tortured by those who think that he limits the doctrine of the Gospel to those only who are teachable and well-prepared. For what will be the consequence, if nobody is invited by pious teachers, until by his obedience he has anticipated the grace of God? On the contrary, we are all by nature unholy, and prone to rebellion. The remedy of salvation must be refused to none, till they have rejected it so basely when offered to them, as to make it evident that they are reprobate and self-condemned, as Paul says of heretics, (Titus 3:11.)

    There are two reasons, why Christ forbade that the Gospel should be offered to lost despisers. It is an open profanation of the mysteries of God to expose them to the taunts of wicked men. Another reason is, that Christ intended to comfort his disciples, that they might not cease to bestow their labors on the elect of God in teaching the Gospel, though they saw it wantonly rejected by wicked and ungodly men. His meaning is lest this inestimable treasure should be held in little estimation, swine and dogs must not be permitted to approach it. There are two designations which Christ bestows on the doctrine of salvation: he calls it holy, and compares it to pearls. Hence we learn how highly we ought to esteem this doctrine.

    Lest these trample them under their feet  Christ appears to distinguish between the swine and the dogs: attributing brutal stupidity to the swine, and rage to the dogs. And certainly, experience shows, that there are two such classes of despisers of God. Whatever is taught in Scripture, for instance, about the corrupt nature of man, free justification, and eternal election, is turned by many into an encouragement to sloth and to carnal indulgence. Such persons are fitly and justly pronounced to be swine. Others, again, tear the pure doctrine, and its ministers, with sacrilegious reproaches, as if they threw away all desire to do well, all fear of God, and all care for their salvation. Although he employs both names to describe the incurable opponents of the Word of God, yet, by a twofold comparison, he points out briefly in what respect the one differs from the other. (Commentaries) ↑

  45. Quoted in Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 1 (Concordia, 1950), 296. ↑

  46. Timothy Lull, Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings (Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 47. ↑

  47. Charles H. Spurgeon, Autobiography, Volume 1: The Early Years (Banner of Truth, 1962), v. ↑

  48. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Edward N. Gross ed., abridged version, (Presbyterians & Reformed Publishing, 1992), 441, underlining added. ↑

  49. D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Authority, (Staples, 1958), 13-14, underlining added. ↑

  50. Colin Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Eerdmans, 1984), 207, underlining added. ↑

  51. For further discussion on the supernatural nature of conversion see chapters 4.16 and 6.3. ↑

  52. Donald Bloesch, A Theology of Word & Spirit (InterVarsity Press, 1992), 59. ↑

  53. Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Zondervan, 2010), Kindle Locations 3442-3444. ↑

  54. For further discussion on the importance and application of the concepts of Spirit-liberated and devil-darkened reason see especially chapters 4.12-16. ↑

  55. Hodge, 440. ↑