The Classic Error of Classical Apologetics

I was doing a brief skim of some of Norman Geisler’s material (no, it’s not something I do regularly) and came across the following quote:

“General revelation is manifest in several areas: for example, physical nature, human nature, and history. In each case God has disclosed something specific about Himself and His relationship to His creation. General revelation is integral to Christian apologetics, since it is the data with which theists construct arguments for the existence of God (see chapter 2). Without it there would be no basis for apologetics…Even apart from God’s special revelation in Scripture, then, He has manifested Himself through general revelation in nature.” Systematic Theology, vol. 1, 65.

Oye.

Obviously, according to this method, God’s special revelation (the Bible) has a secondary status to general revelation. Forget the fact that God spent 1,500 years revealing Himself to human beings in history and that this is the most reliable, sound, and thorough source of information about God! Geisler claims that the foundation for apologetics is natural theology, not biblical theology.

Why set aside the Scriptures? The response of the classical apologist is almost always unanimous: Because unbelievers don’t believe the Bible is the Word of God; skeptics reject the Bible. So we have to find some common ground from which we can argue towards Christianity, which is general revelation.

But, why do unbelievers reject the Bible? For the same reason they reject general revelation and find the classical arguments for God uncompelling: their precommitment to unbelief. That is to say, natural theology is not a sufficient starting point for the Christian apologist, because the natural man presupposes from the outset that he determines what is true and untrue, possible and impossible, and until that presupposition and bias is exposed, all facts and arguments will be re-interpreted through the lens of their unbelief. The Christian apologist must challenge the unbeliever’s presuppositions, not their surface-level arguments. And, Christian apologetics is all or nothing. You offer Christianity as a complete, comprehensive worldview, way of salvation, and way of life and thinking, or you don’t.

For Geisler, Howe, and others, however, “Special revelation contributes uniquely to Christian theology…Scriptures is normative for salvation” (Systematic Theology, 69). That is, general revelation comes as our primary foundation for knowledge of God, while the primary role of Scripture is to lead us to Christ. We should be cautious not to confuse the two. As Geisler arranged it (p. 69):

Of course, none of these distinctions or assertions are found in the New Testament. In fact, we have the opposite assertion in Romans 1 regarding the use of natural theology: the unbeliever’s knowledge of God only results in “vain speculation,” not as “God as Creator, Norm for Society,” (Ibid,. 69). There simply is no biblical argument to substantiate this primary claim of classical apologetics.

We do, however, have a command to “give a defense” under one precondition: “honoring Christ as Lord” (I Pet. 3:15). Note, that the Christian apologist doesn’t defend Christianity under honoring “God as Creator” or “Norm for Society” etc. Rather, the Lordship of Christ, which is explicitly and thoroughly revealed in Scripture, is the absolute foundation, presupposition, and power from which true and honoring apologetics exists.