Point: Some Christians engage in apologetics in a piecemeal fashion. They give evidence here and there. They refute an objection here and there. They might not realize the importance of Presuppositional apologetics (as taught by Cornelius Van Til) with its emphasis of going beyond the individual sparring of the skeptics’ objection and instead pursue refutations of the opponent’s worldview at the level of presuppositions. How can you illustrate the importance of refuting an opponent’s worldview?
Picture: I recently read and reviewed a book titled “Harpoon: Inside the Covert War Against International Terrorism’s Money Masters.” It is a fascinating book on Israel’s fight against terrorism but in ways most people don’t think about. It isn’t primarily about commando raids and secret agents (though there are stories of that in the book) but rather it is the attempt to stop the funding of terrorist organization and terrorist operation. As the book said “The Israeli task force realized ahead of everyone else that money was the oxygen for the terrorist networks and you could badly damage them by choking it off.” There are many stories in the book of how terrorist organizations being hindered financially ended up being unable to pay their terrorist operatives and financially support the logistics of terror. In other words going after the funding of terrorism effectively hinder terrorists carrying out terrorism since money is a prerequisite for terrorist activities. In the same way there is a place of going after the presuppositions of an opponent’s worldview and refuting it in order to show it undermine the precondition for the opponent’s attack against Christianity.
POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR EMPLOYING THIS ILLUSTRATION DURING APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM
OPPONENT: I don’t like fashion you go about in answering my objection. You keep on switching topic from dealing with my objection against Christianity.
CHRISTIAN: I’m not trying to avoid the topic. We need to understand your objection is not done in a vacuum. They are launched from a particular worldview, hence my methodology of exposing and refuting your presuppositions. I am trying to explore the foundation of your beliefs and see whether or not your objection is even intelligible or meaningful within your own worldview belief system. You don’t like it?
OPPONENT: No.
CHRISTIAN: If I may give an analogy of what I’m trying to do. Are you aware that counter-terrorism strategy isn’t always a direct combat action of commandos with terrorists? Sometimes the most effective means of combating terrorism is going after their finances. <INSERT ILLUSTRATION.> Now, does terrorist activities require money?
OPPONENT: Yes.
CHRISTIAN: So going after terrorists’ finances makes sense. Likewise exposing and refuting your worldview when your worldview ends up neutralizing your own ability and basis to mount an objection against Christianity makes sense.
[…] GO TO PART 48 […]
Very well said. Thanks!
I’m learning a lot.
Blessings, grace and peace.
Michael, thank you for reading this. I have benefited from your blog as well brother!
Good analogy! Similarly, when witnessing to Catholics we can get wrapped around the axle on secondaries (Mary, pope, indulgences, etc.), and miss the overriding disagreement, how a person is saved.
Love the additional application that you shared. We must not miss the centrality of the Gospel. Ten years ago I was more imbalance, being more about apologetics than preaching the Gospel. God has changed that in my life; most evangelistic encounters I have these days have bless apologetics’ debates and more sharing of the Gospel. I think it shows itself in the blog as well. I think I am more biblical and wholistic these days and I hope it reflects on my blog where not everything I write is apologetics but more about the Bible and Gospel as well…
Yes, when I talked with Catholics long ago I was all about debating the details instead of presenting the Gospel. I do harp on the details via my blog, though, because the information is rare to find these days, especially how the Roman gospel is not the same as the Gospel of grace.
I have benefited from those details you have shared with us; actually learned a lot from you. The deeper into the theology of Catholicism you explore the more I’m appalled at how unbiblical it is. For me the most shocking was the device to hurt oneself that is worn by some who are trying to practice penance…it was a “no way, that can’t be real!” moment. I wonder what other readers have shared with you that they were blown away with lesser known details of Roman Catholic beliefs…
Yes, others have sent in comments reacting to some of the more bizarre practices and beliefs of Catholicism that I’ve posted, but in this era of tolerance and pluralism, I think a lot of evangelicals feel very uncomfortable reading a blog named “excatholic4christ” let alone interacting with it. I’m reminded of someone like Billy Graham. Probably the last thing in the world he wanted to read was a book that contradicted his ecumenical beliefs. All of which causes me to be grateful for you and others who aren’t afraid to stand on the “wrong” side of ecclesial correctness.
Presuppositions apologetics is very helpful
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
I hope you are having a blessed Saturday brother. Thanks for the reblog Vincent!
Yankee Whiskey Bravo and I did and likewise my friend
Your scenario reminds me of an exchange I had a short time back. The skeptic brought up Bible Verses in order to show how they had been discredited. When I defended the same Verses with the use of other verses, he started trying to rail at me for bringing Scripture into our debate. Sometimes they just don’t seem to realize how ridiculous they appear.
That is so bizarre. Demonstrating the error of his claim against a verse according to passages from the immediate context or the larger canonical context is part of interpretation and if interpreted wrongly it’s sound to point it out. Kudos to you!
🙂
Reblogged this on ApoloJedi and commented:
Because evidence is interpreted within one’s worldview, evidence that corroborates scripture will never be accepted by the naturalist. They will always interpret evidence from a naturalistic worldview.
So, to faithfully present the gospel of Jesus, the apologist should critically analyze the skeptic’s worldview (or presuppositions). All worldviews that do not begin with the Creator as the omniscient Revealer, will end up with contradictions or unfounded regressions.
Praise God for his faithfulness and goodness!
[…] 2.) Apologetics Sermon Illustration #48: Refuting Presuppositions and Fighting Terrorist Financing […]
[…] GO TO PART 48 […]
[…] Refuting Presuppositions and Fighting Terrorist Financing […]
Helpful analogy!
[…] Refuting Presuppositions and Fighting Terrorist Financing […]
[…] Refuting Presuppositions and Fighting Terrorist Financing […]
[…] Refuting Presuppositions and Fighting Terrorist Financing […]