Apologetics 102 Natural Religion

Natural Religion The battle for Natural Religion is, I suppose, still going on. A Cosmologist or an Anthropologist may be a Theist. That is, there is no conclusive evidence in his field that demands that he hold an Atheistic viewpoint. On the other hand, there is no conclusive evidence that demands that he hold the Theistic viewpoint. This fact (that there is no evidence that demands either view) fits in nicely with Presuppositional Apologetics: that belief is a matter of faith from first to last, and that faith is not generated by the believer. It comes (Eph 2:8-9) as a gift from God. Thus, the believer does not need to revert to a hypothetical state wherein he reviews the arguments for and against Theism and decides in favor of the former. The believer begins from a state of belief and reviews the arguments for or against (if he has an Apologistic bent) Theism being prejudiced in favor of Theism. He isn't in the Jury Box weighing evidence. He is in the Witness Box giving evidence. The Evidentialist (that branch of Apologetics that believes there is evidence of one kind or another that demands that the unbeliever accepts not only Theism but Christian Theism) has a different task. Whereas the Presuppositionalist can deal with the matter of belief from a Dogmatic standpoint, the Evidentialist must review physical evidence in the Natural World. The Evidentialist's record, in the Natural World, has not been good. In fairness, his record has probably been no worse than that of Natural Scientists, but he has the misfortune of having to maintain that 1) Revealed doctrine is very specific about the physical detail of the Universe (Conservative Theologians are not in agreement about this) and 2) that he understands precisely what revealed doctrine has to say about those details of the Universe. The Evidentialist would seem to have good cause in Romans 1 which states that the universe declares the glory of God. Why then does he have so much difficulty convincing the atheist of that fact? The answer is that man has always been ready to accept explanations other than God's. Adam and Eve were presented a certain reality by God ("eat of the fruit and you shall surely die"), but they were quick to accept an alternate explanation ("You shall not surely die"). In a similar manner, the Evidentialist looks out at the physical universe and says "God!" The Atheist looks out at the same Universe and says "Chance," or "Nature," or whatever else is current in Cosmology at the time. There are Theistic Cosmologists, but the Atheist is fond of erecting the explanations of the Cosmologists who are not Theists. The Atheist is fond of asking the Theist for proof. The Atheist has no proof of his position, but that doesn't matter in a debate. Notice that God did not provide Adam and Eve with proof that He and not the serpent was right. God asserted "you shall surely die," but he didn't immediately prove it. He kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden and reduced the status of their deceiver. These acts, we presume, convinced Adam and Eve that God was probably right and not the serpent. And yet, how do we know that after a gorgeous day while sitting on a stone bench far from God, watching a sunset, Adam and Eve didn't silently wonder whether the serpent might not be right after all? The Presuppositionalist can frame his arguments in such a way as to encourage those to whom the Lord is giving the gift of faith. He can also construct arguments to show that the Theistic argument is as respectable as any other. But he cannot (without being inconsistent) attempt to argue a person into a belief in God. That is, he will not argue with the idea that if he wins his argument, the atheist must believe. The Presuppositionalist knows that the Atheist cannot believe unless the Holy Spirit provides him with the gift of faith. Which isn't to say that the Presuppositionalist won't argue with the atheist, for he has no way of knowing whether or not the Lord might be calling the atheist to faith. If the atheist is an argumentative sort, an argument with a Christian, even a Presuppositionalist, may be just the device the Lord uses to convict him of sin & turn him to the Lord. The Evidentialist (when in argument with the Presuppositionalist) cries foul here. He thinks the Presuppositionalist is being inconsistent by arguing in much the same way as the Evidentialist. But the Presuppositionalist sees no inconsistency. He studies to make himself more proficient in argumentation so that the Lord might more readily use him. And so, to a large extent, the Presuppositional Apologist is also an Evangelist. Lawrence