Introduction

After over viewing the entire field of apologetics per the classic Peter passage (2 Pet. 3:15) and the autonomy warning in Colossians (2:8), we took up the theme of the canon of Scripture. Now I want to build on that theme today in a message titled, "The Ultimate Presupposition in Christian Apologetics." There are three main things I want to cover: the fact of Scripture as the ultimate presupposition, an implication of that fact, and some applications.

1A. The fact of Scripture as the ultimate presupposition

Let's look at this fact by means of the key words Scripture, presupposition, and ultimate.

1B. Scripture

We need to be conscious of what we mean when we speak of Scripture.

1) First, there is a personal dimension to Scripture

That Scripture is the ultimate presupposition is a fact that must be framed in a full and personal way. That is, by Scripture is meant God's word and the God of Scripture is the triune God, the maker and sustainer of heaven and earth. Therefore, it is helpful to state the matter in the following way. The ultimate presupposition of Christian apologetics is the sovereign God, and Lord of history, speaking and in Scripture through Christ by the Holy Spirit by means of human authors duly appointed and empowered (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21; Col. 3:16). For short, the presupposition of Christian apologetics is God speaking in Scripture.

2) Second, Scripture has a precise scope

By Scripture we mean the sixty-six books of the Bible. We refer precisely to the thirty-nine books of the OT and to the twenty-seven books of the NT as the very word of God written. Scripture is the documentation of redemptive history and redemptive history is covenantal. Thus the written old covenant and the written new covenant constitute the ultimate presupposition of the Christian worldview and apologetics.

3) Third, Scripture has an enduring validity

To be truly brief all we need to say is that belief in the sixty-six books of the Bible is presuppositionally ultimate for the Christian on the basis of the authority and promise of Christ. We have His word old and new to the end of the age (Matt. 5:17f; 16:18; 28:19-20). To preserve the authorized witness to Christ that He promised the oral tradition had to be written and collected in a solidified form. The witness to Christ is the gospel. Thus, Scripture defines the gospel that we are to defend. (1 Pet. 1:23, cf. v. 24, the word that stands forever "was preached to you" showing that Peter is selectively recording an authoritative oral tradition that summarizes gospel proclamation).

So to what do we refer when we say that Scripture is the ultimate presupposition? We refer to the word of the triune God (it is personal) expressed in the sixty-six writings of the Bible (precisely sixty-six, no more and no less) that defines the gospel to the end of the age (it is the living and enduring word of God, 1 Pet. 1:23, by which we are born again).

2B. Presupposition

A presupposition is a technical term that means more than an assumption. It is not something that you simply assume or take for granted. It has two closely related aspects, a subjective aspect and an objective aspect. Subjectively, a presupposition is a belief that governs other beliefs in a normative sense. The other beliefs are controlled by the presupposition in such a way that without the presuppositional belief these other beliefs would collapse like a building with no foundation. Objectively and additionally, a presupposition is a necessary condition for intelligibility. That is, it is something that must be true in order for other things to make sense; in the fullest sense it is something that must be true to have knowledge itself, to know anything.

This claim is as bold as it is fundamental. God speaking in Scripture (sovereign and triune God speaking in the sixty-six books) must be true (the Christian worldview must be true) or there is no basis or foundation for knowing anything.

This can be articulated in general terms by reference to the closing words of the Sermon on the Mount. Do you recall how this most famous sermon ends? It ends with the illustration of the wise and foolish builders. The fool built his house on the sand. The wise man built his house on massive rock. When rains came, streams rose, winds blew, and the respective houses were beaten and battered, the one without a foundation "fell with a great crash" while the other did not fall because it had its foundation on the rock" (Matt. 7:24-27). To what does this massive foundation rock point? It points to the words of Christ (v. 24). Building the house represents hearing, learning, and doing His word across the board of one's life. Every area of life is to be governed by His every word. His word refers to the Sermon recorded in the Gospels, the Gospels themselves, the whole NT, and with it the entire OT. The Bible gives us the word of Christ.

And it is His word that is critically foundational to all that we learn and practice, to all that we know in order to live. For life to make sense, for learning to make sense, and for education in any field to make sense, it must have a foundation. It must be founded on the rock of Scripture.

3B. Ultimate

It already sounds ultimate to say that if Scripture were not true then there could be no knowledge of anything whatsoever. It is quite radical to say that the truth of Scripture is necessary for knowledge itself. And is it is a powerful point to claim that unless one believes the word of Christ He is a fool and has no foundation for any other belief. We can only say this because Christ said it. We must say it on His authority and in honor to Him as our Lord.

Nonetheless, we can add one more dimension to the picture that etches the notion of ultimacy deeply onto the canvas of our hearts. To speak of Scripture as an ultimate presupposition is to emphasize that there is nothing more foundational. There is nothing beyond it that holds it in place. Connected with knowledge this means that belief in God speaking in Scripture takes precedence over all other beliefs and nothing takes precedence over God speaking in Scripture.

Support for this claim of ultimacy is given by a connection that can be made between Peter, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews. From Peter we get the duty to give reasoned defense (1 Pet. 3:15). From Philippians we get the additional notion of confirming the certainty of the gospel worldview (confirming is added to defending and is thus part and parcel of it, Phi. 1:7). From the book of Hebrews we get some insight into the nature of a confirmation (Heb. 6:16-17) in relation to Christian hope (Heb. 6:18). Our hope is certain and safe (6:19) resting as it does in the self-attesting word of God who assures us by adding oath to promise. It rests in the fact that He swore by himself since there is no one greater (6:13). The believer's hope in the gospel promises of God thereby rests on "two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie" (6:18). These are His promise and His oath.

Applied to apologetics this means that the gospel word of promise that we are to defend rests on God Himself and no one greater (Heb. 6:13). It means that Scripture has a self-attesting quality to it. Scripture is the written canon as final and ultimate norm in a derivative sense because it derives its authority from God who is canon in a personal and ultimate sense. God is the standard of truth; so His word in Scripture is the written standard of truth.

2A. An implication of Scripture as the ultimate presupposition

Therefore knowing is not merely an intellectual, philosophical, or scientific matter. To truly know something is to be wise rather than foolish with regard to it. To know is richer than to simply have information about x. "To know" means to hear the voice of God in submission, gratitude, worship, and obedience.

Therefore without commitment to God speaking in Scripture man can know nothing. To know involves faith and submission. It has a personal dimension, which gives knowledge its richness and dynamic.

The "knowledge" and "wisdom" of the world is actually folly. Alienation from God includes being enemies in the mind because of evil behavior (Col. 1:21; cf. the tie of futility of thinking and darkened understanding with hardened hearts, insensitivity, and sensuality in Eph. 4:17-19). This is vain reasoning (Rom. 1:21-22) that is utter folly (Matt. 7:24-27). There is a wisdom of this world that means being wise by human standards (1 Cor. 1:20, 26; the standards of this age, 1 Cor. 3:18). Such is called "man's wisdom" (1 Cor. 2:5). Inability to understand the thoughts of God extends to all He has revealed in the created order (1 Cor. 2:11; Rom. 1; Ps. 19). He knows nothing truly just as He does nothing righteously. He cannot understand the thoughts of God given in Scripture (1 Cor. 2:14) or in creation (Rom. 1:18f; the natural man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness so his foolish heart is darkened.

Clarification

What about knowing how to do science in technology and medicine? Is this not worthy of the title, knowledge? How do we account for the progress made in these areas by the natural man?

"Knowing" in quote marks means he knows but suppresses what he knows. He knows rebelliously. He knows God through the created order and in his conscience (Rom. 1, 3) but in a skewed way. He knows God in every fact he experiences but denies and suppresses this knowledge. He substitutes the creature for the creator. As God's image bearer He cannot help but know the creation and through it the Creator. He knows God. But he knows looking over the shoulder in flight from the Lord of creation. He knows but flees fearing God's wrath. He asserts his independence and governs all he thinks and does through this presupposition. Thus, to know nothing truly means that what he knows is discolored by the autonomy sunglasses he always wears.

He knows the facts of God's world and can make valid deductions from one fact to another. As the image of God, man (though fallen) still has the God-given capacity to receive the voice of God given in creation. He denies that it is God's voice. He refuses to acknowledge the voice of God there. He enjoys a beautiful sunset with thankfulness of a sort but with none expressed to God. He knows partially or relatively but not truly if we think of knowledge in a rich biblical way.

This can be compared with how a natural man can do nothing good. A good act includes the right standard, motive, and goal. To do something good means that the act conforms to God's law, is done out of love in the heart for God, and is done with the goal of glorifying God.

Thus when we say that the natural man does good to provide for his family we are saying that he does good in a relative and partial sense. It is not actually good before God in the full sense of what a good act actually involves.

Likewise, the natural man can know nothing. True knowledge involves much more than the gathering of information however accurately by the tools of science. True knowledge involves the right standard (accurate gathering of information by the tools of science), the right motive (to love God and enjoy His wisdom displayed there), and the right goal (to glorify God exalting and honoring His name above all else). This is a hard truth of Scripture that is analogous to the hard truth that all our righteousness is filthy rags. All our knowledge (accurate as it may be in a relative and incomplete sense) is filthy ignorance.

Hence, this is not an intellectual retreat but a profound intellectual challenge. Without the truth of God as sovereign ruler speaking in Scripture and creation then knowledge is impossible. Even accurate fact gathering in unbelief lacks a foundation. To deny Christ is to take the knife to one's own throat in intellectual suicide (how that works out can be shown in philosophy and science in counter-argument).

3A. Some application of Scripture as ultimate presupposition

Given this tension of knowing and doing, how do we defend the faith?

1) First, it must be done very carefully because the natural man has an axe to grind that is radical in a most profound sense. Deeply rooted in his soul is a heart of enmity, rebellion, and deceit summed up in the sin of asserted autonomy (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:6-7; Rom. 1:21; Col. 2:8).

We must ever be on guard for the operation of the principle of autonomy. It is deceptive and begins with a displacement of God's word in some way or another. We have already discussed how this is done in Roman Catholic theology by redefining the authority of Scripture in terms of the authority of the church. That is, Catholic theology replaces God's authority with man's authority in a deceitful and confusing mixture. Catholic theology fails to listen to the authority and promise of Christ regarding the place of the thirty-nine OT Scriptures and the twenty-seven NT Scriptures as the foundation of the church. So to the OT they add more books than are authorized by Christ and to the NT they add continual revelation through an alleged succession of apostle/popes in contradiction of the promise of Christ. The problem is that in subtle ways Protestants may do the same thing. We too may substitute a canon for the canon. That brings up my second application.

2) Second, we must defend Scripture and the Christian worldview in such a way that does not place some other canon above the canon. Therefore, Scripture is the ultimate and final standard in the defense of the faith and in the living of the faith. Both are to be conducted consistently in submission to the Lordship of Christ (cf. logic is a presupposition but it is weak or subordinate compared to what is rock solid and ultimate). Peter tells us to sanctify Christ as Lord in our hearts as we work at readiness in answer giving (1 Pet. 3:15). Paul tells us to continue to live as we have received Christ as Lord (Col 2:6). The baptismal commitment to the authority of Christ that symbolizes the beginning of the Christian walk is to characterize that walk throughout. Hence, consistency with the word of Christ should be sought in all of life and in all knowledge endeavors including that which pertains to apologetics (again, note that apologetics is simply a part of Christian living).

Hence the canonical circle: We get this view of the canon from the canon. This too can be no other way if Scripture is the ultimate presupposition of the Christian worldview. Our view of Scripture must come from Scripture. Our defense of Scripture must clearly and consistently rest on Scripture. It can be no other way for those under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, if indeed that Lordship is absolute and complete. Again, we are confronted with a call to faith and repentance. We are to submit ourselves to the authority of the Lord Jesus and in doing so we are to turn away from autonomous human authority. The key to the canonical circle is the sanctification of Christ in the heart. Embracing Him we are directed to embrace both the OT and the NT.

What if someone says, "I must have logical evidence to prove to me that I ought to embrace the Scriptures as canon"? What if they ask for a reason along this line of thought? We must point out immediately that the way they are stating the matter shows that they have a canon already. Namely, they are asserting the final authority of human reason. This is problematic because it begs the question regarding the authority of Christ and is thereby self-contradictory. In short, it is a hopelessly illogical posture to hold. But more importantly, we must tell them that this unreasonable position involves the assertion of human autonomy, which is the core of human sin. From that Christ calls them to repent. He calls them in every created fact that surrounds them. He calls them in the self-attesting words of Scripture. Finally, we tell them that the good news (the gospel) promises forgiveness to those who submit to Christ as Lord. This is the way of life both now and forevermore. There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. By turning from self, self-law and autonomous authority to Him with a commitment to faith and obedience, we have salvation.

This is a particular (and not uncommon) inquiry. It is a different story if someone seeks reasons that are not front end loaded with the assertion of autonomy (where autonomy is back end loaded no doubt and may be addressed at a different time and place). In the present context regarding the canon, someone may inquire as to why some Christians hold to only a sixty-six book canon and that may be debated including the kind of things we have been discussing in this study. In giving a reason, we should go directly to Christ pointing to His authority and promise. The bottom line is that the Christian says, "As a Christian I am committed to Jesus Christ as the risen Lord. He directs me to the OT and the NT. He does so in this way and that (cf. His authority and promise regarding the sixty-six books). In submission to Him I am bound by reason and conscience to live by Scripture as my ultimate authority. It is part and parcel of my being a Christian (a Christian, a Christ-one, or one who belongs to Christ) in the first place."

Eventually such answer giving may lead back to the taproot of autonomy. We should not doubt that that taproot is present though hidden. But there are levels of exchange and levels of need at any given moment. We need to be wise and earnest seeking to be always prepared to give a reasoned defense of the hope we have in Christ.

3) Finally, this is the greatest possible source of knowledge, assurance, and hope. Our comfort rests not in ourselves in any sense. We have God's self-attestation. We have His confirmation. He promised and then added oath to promise. He swore by Himself because there is no one greater. Ultimately, this hope we have reaches behind the curtain and fixes on Jesus. He went before us and entered the heavenly sanctuary on our behalf. He is our high priest forever (Heb. 6:19-20).